Save Our Southwestern College

Credit Where Due

2012-01-11T07:35:00.000-08:00

Below, we share a letter, posted on The Writer's Washroom by Nick Furr on 10 January 2012.

But first, we would like to point out that while we appreciate the credit, we don't entirely agree with Furr's sentiments. Yes, there were rumblings on the ground and a lot of hard work before the UT picked up the story. That is how it goes.

As far as we're concerned, events played out exactly as they should: People close to the situation realized there were problems. (Note that the Save Our SWC blog began in September 2009, before student protests, free speech issues, and suspended instructors made things interesting; the SWC Sun had been publishing articles questioning admin and board actions for months before that; the SWC Academic Senate, Classified Employees Association, and Council of Chairs had already voted No Confidence in Chopra; check our September and October 2009 posts for background).

That is how it goes. People close to the situation start making noise. They begin to identify avenues for getting out their message. Some people hear it and start making noise too. People, many of whom have never been mentioned in a press piece or blog post, put their jobs on the line to help out. Meanwhile, if the problem is real, the bad guys keep messing up, people keep making noise, and the sound is heard farther away and higher up.

If social media has taught us anything, it's that effecting change isn't about individuals; it's about critical mass, people with shared concerns each providing a piece, passing it on, supporting each other to achieve a goal that transcends any one person's or organization's actions. That is how it goes, and it works.

We'd also like to point out that the San Diego UT (like SWC) is not a single mind. What an editorial board chooses to publish at one point and what Watchdog reporters do on the ground are very different. So thank you to the reporters there and to the other news outlets who contributed in bringing us to this point.

Thank you, everyone. We did it.

------------------

A Letter to District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis: You Thanked the Wrong Folks

January 8, 2012

Ms. Dumanis:

It was with delight that I watched you stand tall with four other members of your department and announce a series of indictments against members of the Sweetwater Union High School District. Knowing that I would soon see the five of you stand together and announce indictments against members of the Southwestern College District community made me even happier.

Imagine my surprise when you went out of your way to thank the Union-Tribune for all their help in reporting these events, and specifically mentioned the Watchdog section for its work.

Not to ameliorate the credit given to the Watchdog section – particularly the wonderful Tanya Sierra, whom I believe now works in your office as Public Affairs Officer – but to thank the Union-Tribune for their hard work while ignoring those who actually went out of their way to originally write about the mess that was both SWC and SUHSD is short-sighted and questionably honest at best.

Months before the Union-Tribune even got involved, the San Diego Reader’s brilliant Susan Luzzaro wrote about pay-for-play corruption at both school districts – and was sourced by everyone who wrote about it later.

SWC’s own award-winning Southwestern College Sun got into the act, questioning the timing and bids of Nicholas Alioto’s Napa Valley trip – also long before the U-T got involved. After Sun articles which question Alioto’s actions were printed, the former Vice President of Business and Financial Affairs attempted to shut down the newspaper by forcibly ceasing printing, stripping the faculty advisor of the reassign time he received for his work (though he continued to work without receiving it), and threatening the arrest of numerous student journalists. Following this, the Sun editorial board opted to seek funding from outside the school and continue printing without Alioto’s permission. It was this action against a hostile administration that earned them the 2011 College Press Freedom Award, given out by the Associated Collegiate Press and the Student Press Law Center.

There were also three blogs active in the South Bay which continually disseminated information and opinion to the residents of the district. The first, “Save Our SWC,” uncovered and reported numerous problems with the school administration and did so in a tight, professional manner.

Two of my own blogs, “The Writer’s Washroom” and “SWC Board Must Go!” took a less-neutral stance. I used my own sites to try and affect change, and did so by focusing frequently on the dishonest actions – including pay-for-play ones – of Nick Alioto.

I am willing to have my websites be ignored, but I am less willing to let Susan Luzzaro and the Reader, the editorial board and staff of the Southwestern College Sun, and the anonymous blogger behind “Save Our SWC” go unnoticed.

These people deserve most of the credit you believe the Union-Tribune earned. Every voter in the district with any knowledge of this is aware of these facts.

Allow me to point out that the U-T’s editorial board not only ignored the issues at Southwestern College, but instead of hearing the complaints of students and faculty, they chose to interview Dr. Raj K. Chopra, the superintendent/president at the time, and write about what a fine job he was doing. Of course, all this was going on while Henry Amigable was involved in nearly-constant pay-for-play actions on the campus.

In fact, when a group of faculty, students, campus employees, and citizens (of which I was a proud member) chose to unify and organize in order to vote out the members of the board – some of whom are already mentioned in your documents – who continued to support John Wilson, Henry Amigable, Nick Alioto, and Raj Chopra, the U-T strongly endorsed those same incumbents. When the election was over, and the voters had sent Yolanda Salcido and Jorge Dominguez packing, the U-T’s editorial board wrote a lengthy screed about what a terrible thing the voters of the district had done.

These are hardly good reasons to thank the Union-Tribune for helping uncover these terrible things that happened on these campuses. Ms. Sierra, on the other hand, should still be commended for her stories, but I must again point out that what she wrote, she wrote after many others had already blazed the trail.

Lastly, though you did mention the “public,” as tipping your office about this, I must strongly state that the “public” is the reason investigations were done – at least on the campus of SWC. Were it not for the students of SWC who held rallies and demonstrations to attract attention and the faculty and classified employees that risked their jobs to get involved, the blogs, the Sun, and the Reader would never have researched and written about these criminal actions. Without that, conscientious politicians like Congressman Bob Filner wouldn’t have taken a stance against the corrupt administration. And without all the noise that this created, the Union-Tribune would never have gotten involved.

Please remember that the next time you thank someone for all the hard work that they’ve done.

Respectfully,

Nickolas Furr

(Copies of this letter have been sent to the San Diego Reader, San Diego Union-Tribune, Southwestern College Sun, and the “Save Our SWC” blog.)

Tonight and Some Questions: New Board Members to Be Sworn-In, Followed by GB Meeting

2010-12-08T12:34:00.001-08:00

New board members Norma L. Hernandez and Tim Nader and re-elected Terri Valladolid will be sworn-in tonight at 6:30 as part of a reception beginning at 6:00 p.m.

The reception and ceremony will be held in Room L238 North and South (the "big room" opposite the library). All are welcome to attend.

The regularly scheduled board meeting will follow at 7:00 p.m. in Mayan Hall (which provides far more seating than the usual board room 214). So come on down!

On the swearing-in: Some observers have raised questions about the pre-meeting ceremony. Why, they ask, not have the swearing-in on the regular meeting agenda as has been done in the past? Isn't this required by Brown Act rules of public notification?

A search of California Government Code, Elections Code, Education Code, the Brown Act, and board policy suggests the answer is no. In fact, if the freshly-elected board members aren't sworn prior to the meeting, there's no quorum. The outgoing members would convene the meeting, and the new members wouldn't be seated until swearing in. Clearly, this could be awkward.

(Relevant code sections: Ed Code sections 60, 5000, 5017, 5300, 72000; Elections Code 10554; Government Code 1302, 1360, 1362, 54952.2)

Some agenda items do warrant questions, however. Item 11D, page 6: Why does Alioto want to pay outside consultants over $4,000 for Opening Day presentations? Item 16C, pages 11-12: Why is Chopra requesting agreements with ten different law firms? (Hopefully, with his departure, this item will be tabled.)

SWC Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra Resigns

2010-11-30T14:09:00.000-08:00

A belated Happy Thanksgiving to everyone as we announce some more good news: Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra has resigned from his position effective today.

Chopra announced his resignation with a global email sent to the SWC campus community:

Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 1:41 PM

College Community,

Effective today, November 30, 2010, I will resign from my position as Superintendent/President.

Until the Board can meet to discuss this matter, the vice presidents will serve as administrators in charge on a rotating basis and will perform day-to-day duties on behalf of the District. Following is the schedule:

· December 1-2 Vice President Suarez

· December 3 Vice President Kerns

· December 6 Vice President Alioto

· December 7-8 Vice President Meadows

It has been an honor to serve the students and community of Southwestern College. I wish you all a happy holiday season and all the best in the future.

Raj K. Chopra, Ph.D.
Superintendent/President
Southwestern College
619.482.6301

Onward!

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. ~Margaret Mead

Congratulations, and an Open Letter to Terri Valladolid

2010-11-03T12:19:00.000-07:00

First, let us congratulate the challengers: Norma Hernandez, Tim Nader, and Jesseca Saenz-Gonzalez. All three of you worked tirelessly to run solid, honest campaigns. The results showed at the polls with wins for Norma and Tim and a very close second for Jesseca.

Jesseca's loss may actually be the biggest win of the contest. Everyone said it couldn't be done. They said the Valladolid camp is too strong and well-connected. They said Terri was a slam-dunk with the Democratic endorsement. Well, Jesseca proved them wrong. Terri may have won by a couple percentage points, but Jesseca accomplished something even more important: she showed us that influence and money aren't everything and that voters really do want to hear the truth. She showed us that there are no more excuses for not getting involved. She showed us there is always hope. Thank you, Jesseca!

Of course, now the really hard work of getting the college back on track begins, and we couldn't be more excited to get started.

Toward that end, an open letter to Terri Valladolid:

Terri,

Congratulations on your win. Despite all that has passed, we do value your intelligence, and we trust that you do have the best interests of the college at heart.

This election process has been an education for all of us, and we're sure that is true of you as well.

We hope that along the way, your eyes have been opened to the reality of issues plaguing district management. We hope that you have recognized the level of community dissatisfaction with recent college governance. And we hope this new perspective will enable us to work together to restore the college's vision, integrity, and excellence.

Terri, please join us and help Save Our Southwestern College.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. ~Margaret Mead

Election Eve

2010-11-01T21:34:00.001-07:00

Not that anyone needs reminding, but tomorrow's the day.

Please remember to bring an i.d. and proof of address, just in case.

If you aren't sure where your polling place is, you can easily look it up at Smart Voter.

If you go to your polling place, and you don't show up on the register, you are still entitled to cast a provisional ballot.

Know your voting rights. Seriously.

Finally, look around you (and we're including cyberspace here). Look at the connections and support that has been generated. Look at the selfless work so many people--including you!--have done. Thank them (and yourself!). Thank the candidates.

And remember . . .

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. ~Margaret Mead

Trick and Treat: More Admin Wheeling and Dealing with Construction

2010-10-31T12:23:00.000-07:00

A recent article in the San Diego Union-Tribune by watchdog reporter Tanya Sierra reveals another layer of madness in the college's mismanagement: posh vacations for administrators and construction companies paid out of SWC Foundation funds.

Echo Pacific Construction "won" a silent auction prize, which included spending the weekend with Nick Alioto, SWC Vice President of Business and Financial Affairs. Alioto plays a key role in determining who gets construction contracts.

And guess what? Three weeks later, Echo Pacific did get a contract--for 4 million dollars.

There's more, much more, so please read the full article.

As November 2 approaches, it's as important as ever to get the word out and make sure voters are informed of the truth!

How can you help?

Contact everyone you know in the SWC district--an email, a quick phone call, a Facebook post, a tweet--and ask them to contact three other people they know, etc.

Participate in one or both literature drops organized by candidate Tim Nader:

Late-night Literature Drop to Get Out the Vote
Tomorrow (Monday) at 7:30 p.m.
Meet at 7 Kingswood Dr., Chula Vista, CA 91911

Early Morning Election Day Literature Drop
Tuesday at 4:00 a.m.
Meet at 7 Kingswood Dr., Chula Vista, CA 91911

Help out with sign-waving Monday morning or evening and/or Tuesday morning . Contact Veronica Burton at vburton6@cox.net or just show up at one of the following intersections (7:00-8:30 am; 4:30-6:00 p.m.):

Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road

East H Street and Otay Lakes Road

Terra Nova Plaza

E Street and 805

L Street and 805

The Governing Board incumbents and upper administration seem to think the C in SWC stands for "Construction." Let's set 'em straight.

Let's Save Our Southwestern College.

When Is News not News? When It's Business as Usual

2010-10-25T16:18:00.001-07:00

In our last post, we told you about some shady dealings on the part of Governing Board incumbents. Now there's more.

We've just learned that the Southwestern College district itself sent out a mailer promoting the Board and downplaying accreditation problems.

How did they do this? By packaging the propaganda as "news."

This 8 1/2 X 11 inch mailer on glossy card stock pretends to be "News from Southwestern College," but its timing--right before the election--couldn't be more transparent. (Besides, honestly, if you wanted to send apolitical information to the community, would you choose to do so at the very moment people's mailboxes are overflowing with campaign literature? We think not.)

While not mentioning candidates by name, the mailer refers glowingly to the current Governing Board no fewer than eight times, once in bold red font.

Twice (once on each side), the mailer claims that accreditation problems date from 1996 and 2003 ("Southwestern College is currently resolving issues from previous WASC reports in 1996 and 2003")--a story the incumbents have been promoting throughout their campaigns, especially as a way to discredit former Superintendent/President Norma Hernandez, who is running against Yolanda Salcido for Seat #4.

The truth, of course, is that this Board and Superintendent/President Raj Chopra are responsible for the college's probationary accreditation status, as we've been documenting on this blog for over a year.

So what does it cost to manufacture this kind of spin? According to the label, these mailers went out ECRWSS (Enhanced Carrier Route Walking Sequence Saturation), which in US Postal Service lingo means the mailing had to go to every address on the route.

Assuming the district sent only to addresses in Chula Vista, National City, Imperial Beach, Bonita, and Coronado (skipping outlying areas like San Ysidro and Otay Mesa), that amounts to at least 100,000 households (and we're not even counting the business addresses on those routes). At the non-profit ECRWSS mailing rate of 11 cents per, the mailing cost alone comes to $11,000. And we haven't even included the cost of the mailer itself yet!

Even if we assume an incredibly modest 10 cents for each mailer, that brings the grand total to over $20,000.

And guess who paid for it, folks. Yep, that would be you, the taxpayer.

In case you didn't receive a copy in the mail, you can see the scanned mailer here:
Side 1
Side 2

False Advertising and Deals vs. The Truth

2010-10-18T16:57:00.000-07:00

Like it or not, campaigns and election outcomes largely depend on money. Yard signs, commercials, banners, mailers, and other forms of getting the word out require cash. Lots of cash. We know this, and--grudgingly or not--accept it as the way business is done.

What some of us are not so ready to accept is bad business, deceptive business: candidates who misrepresent themselves and their supporters, figuring that no one will notice, and if they do, oh well, the lie got out there anyway.

We've already addressed Yolanda Salcido's I'm-an-honorable-judge early Halloween costume. Now, a recent article in the Southwestern Sun [link updated Oct. 20] reveals that Salcido used Associated Student Organization (ASO) officer photos and a fake quote in her publicity materials.

According to The Sun, ASO President Manuel Lopez and Vice President of Public Relations Nick Serrano both "feverently denied supporting Salcido and demanded that she remove their photos and false endorsements from her campaign website and all printed campaign materials."

As they say in TV-land, though, that's not all! What many voters don't realize is that space on a lot of slate mailers is bought: despite the appearance of organization endorsement, all that's being endorsed is a fat check.

According to the San Diego County Registrar of Voters Campaign Finance Disclosure Public Site, both Yolanda Salcido and Terri Valladolid have so far spent $15,311 each to appear on these mailers:

California Democratic Voter Guide: $4,500
California Latino Voter Guide: $3,811
California Voter Guide: $7,000
--------------------------------------
Total: $15,311 X 2 = $30,622 to buy two candidates the appearance of widespread support.

And where did all this money come from? Construction interests, of course!

Check it out for yourself by looking at their 460 Recipient Committee Campaign Statements:

Salcido's 460 Jan to June 2010 (shows early donations)
Salcido's 460 July to Sept 2010 (shows additional donations and expenditures)

Valladolid's 460 Jan to June (shows early donations)
Valladolid's 460 July to Sept (shows additional donations and expenditures)

(The third incumbent running for election, Jorge Dominguez, has raised and spent very little money, so we're not covering him here.)

For a comparison, look at Norma L. Hernandez's latest 460. In contrast to Salcido's and Valladolid's big bucks construction money, Hernandez's donations are almost all from individuals and in the amount of $100-$200.

To be fair, Hernandez's campaign has also invested in some slate mailers, but on a much smaller scale, spending less than a third ($4889) what Salcido and Valladolid each have thrown around.

So how do you get a fair election when big money perpetuates itself by supporting candidates that will later reward it with contracts? You fight the incumbent political machine any way you can: by donating, by volunteering, by painting your car window, by doing anything and everything you can to tell the truth.

Campaign contacts:

Jesseca Saenz-Gonzalez – www.jesseca4swc.com
Norma Hernandez – www.hernandez4swc.com
Tim Nader – timnader.com

Volunteer contacts:

Campus outreach: Patti Flores-Charter ccnado@san.rr.com
Phone banking: Veronica Burton vburton6@cox.net
Precinct walking: Diane Gustafon diangus15@aol.com

Tell the truth. Save Our Southwestern College.

Update: Here are a couple more articles from The Sun that you shouldn't miss:

Street Talkin': Some Examples

2010-10-17T14:10:00.000-07:00

We've been talking about using our cars' rear windows to get the message out, and here are a couple more examples.

For both, a "glass pen" (available at KMart in the stationery section) was used on the outside of the window. The results will be water resistant but still washable.

In case you missed our previous updates, you can also look for glass pens (or "glass chalk") at auto stores, hobby shops, and craft supplies.

Also, if you're going old school per our original instructions, a couple of suggestions are 1) add a small amount of liquid dish soap to the tempera to prevent flaking and 2) apply a light coat of hair spray to the window before and after painting.

Please send your photos to saveourswc@yahoo.com, and we'll post them with our next update!

Takin' It to the Street, Part 2: Free Speech on Wheels!

2010-10-14T14:14:00.000-07:00

Last night, we gave you some info about how you can help spread the word about the election by painting on your car rear window.

Here's an update with some additional tips:

If you use tempera according to our previous directions, try lightly spraying the inside of the rear window with hair spray first. (If it runs, just smooth out with a paper towel.) The hair spray will dry clear (more or less) and help act as a primer: your paint will go on more smoothly and stick better. Let the hair spray dry thoroughly before you paint. After the paint is completely dry, you can apply another very light coat of hair spray.

An easy (though slightly more expensive) alternative to tempera is glass chalk, which can be used on the outside of the windows. Supposedly, it will hold up in the rain yet comes off easily when scrubbed with water. Check at auto supply stores and hardware stores for this one.

Finally, once you've done your window, please send us a photo of the job at saveourswc@yahoo.com, and we'll post it on the blog!

And keep those tips coming. Let's do this!

Takin' It to the Street!

2010-10-13T19:39:00.000-07:00

With less than three weeks to the election (and absentee ballots already coming in), there is a quick, easy way that everyone can help get the word out: let your car's rear window do the talking.

It's a simple matter of buying some very inexpensive supplies, printing the template (provided here), and doing the painting.

Read on for more detailed instructions:

Supplies: You will need to purchase a bottle of white or yellow tempera paint (around $2) and some small brushes (around $2-4, depending on what you get).

Make sure you buy tempera paint (not latex or acrylic). Even when dry, tempera dissolves in water and is easy to remove.
Get smaller brushes than you think you'll need--the bristles will spread as you apply the paint. We used a 1/8" and a 1/4" brush.

Local sources for the paint and brushes:

Jo-Ann Fabrics & Crafts
1410 East Plaza Blvd
National City CA 91950
(619) 477-2230

Michaels Arts & Crafts
1242 Broadway
Chula Vista CA 91911
(619) 425-0209

and Walmart. (Note: Target does not carry tempera)

We splurged and bought a four-pack of brushes for $3.99 (at right). Keep in mind that one bottle of paint can do a lot of windows: share with your friends! For around $6 (paint and brushes), you can easily paint ten cars--a cost of 60 cents per car.

Templates: Because tempera dissolves in water (and also provides a tempting surface for initial-carving), you want to paint your sign on the inside of your back window. As a result, you'll be writing your message backwards from the inside so that it appears correctly from the outside. Using a template makes this task much easier.

Your end result will look like this (but window-sized):

When you print out the templates, they'll look weird! Text will be backward and cut off at strange places. That's okay! Once you cut out the lines of text and tape them together, you'll end up with something like this (but window-sized):

There are four different templates (ignore the "parent directory" link but click the others):

Each template consists of four different files: one for the top line (broken into two-three pieces for that file); two for the candidates' names (split down the middle); and one for the closing line (split into three pieces).

With files 1 and 4, cut out each piece. (Leave the lines in files 2 and 3 intact.) To match up lines, refer to the image above, and cut white space as needed. As you tape the parts together, you'll end up with three different chunks (lead line, candidates' names, and closing line).

Application of template: First, clean the back window inside and out! Some window cleaner, or even just plain water, will do the job fine.

To use the template, you will tape each "chunk" face down on the rear window from the outside. (As you do this, the strategy will make more sense: through the paper, you'll see how the print will appear for viewers.) Since there are three different "chunks," you can adjust spacing as needed. (The original template is based on an average rear window size of about 40" X 20".)

Painting: Now all you have to do is follow the template. Climb into the back of the car, and using a small brush with paint (you can work from the container or a small cup), trace the letters. Don't worry about getting everything perfect! Remember, drivers will be seeing your sign on the run; they won't be scrutinizing details. The message is the important part!

Tips:

Trace the letters from top to bottom. If you are right-handed, work from left to right to avoid smudging paint. If you are left-handed, work from right to left.
Don't worry about little mistakes. Big ones can easily be cleaned up with a moistened paper towel.
As you move down the window, painting may become more difficult. Again, remember it's the message that's important; don't sweat the small stuff.
Depending on the quality of your paint, you may want to do a second coat. The image at the beginning of this post shows a one-coat job with cheap paint. Still, the message would be readily visible to other drivers. We'll do a touch-up tomorrow and post new pics. Note: let the first coat dry (might take an hour) before attempting a second.
Remember to wash your brushes with some warm water and a little dish soap afterward. In the meantime, you can let them soak in a cup of water.

This is an easy way to contribute to SWC; reading the directions will probably take you more time than to do the job. Speak up. Be heard. Make a difference.

Save Our Southwestern College!

Governing Board Meeting Wednesday! and other news . . .

2010-10-11T21:25:00.001-07:00

Wednesday, October 13, is the last regularly scheduled Board meeting before the November 2 election.

The meeting will be held in Room 214 on the main campus and begins at 7:00 pm.

On the agenda will be approval of the college's first accreditation progress report (due October 15). Also planned is an Academic Senate resolution protesting the administration's multiple delays in securing an SLO coordinator--one of the conditions of accreditation.

For more details and reasons why YOU should attend, please see this post at SWC Board Must Go! As that blog states, "You want to address them about their attack on the Southwestern College Sun? You want to know why your children can’t get into classes? You want your chance to speak your mind and make them listen? This is it."

Perhaps, too, someone can ask Yolanda Salcido why her campaign web site refers to her as "The Honorable Yolanda Salcido" (plug for meet and greet event). Salcido is a not a judge; never has been. In fact, according to a search of the State Bar of California, she is not a licensed attorney and never has been. Perhaps she's confused her gavel at Board meetings with that of a judge? Or maybe she's taking cues from Nicholas Alioto, Not-a-CPA in bogus self-promotion? Either way, the college deserves far better governance--ethical, experienced, and not beholden to countywide construction interests.

Jesseca Saenz-Gonzalez is one of those contenders. Going up against what SWC Board Must Go! calls "a has-been opponent who couldn't be bothered to show up at an impartial candidate forum at Southwestern College," Jesseca has a new commercial coming out.

The ad will be airing on Animal Planet, FX, Lifetime, MTV2, SyFy, TLC, Travel Channel, Tru TV, The Weather Channel, and VH1. Watch for it!

Finally, if you want to revisit some of the issues that brought us to this point, Katherine Sweetman's mini-doc, Trouble at Southwestern College is a good starting point.

By the way, as part of the current art exhibition: CONTROverse: Contemporary Visions of the US-Mexico Border, Sweetman's latest microdoc, Living in Tijuana, along with Gustavo Vazquez's Que Viva la Lucha, will be shown on campus this coming Thursday, 6-8 pm, in Room 750. These are perfect examples of what is right with the college. Please help us fix what's wrong.

Please help us Save Our Southwestern College.

TONIGHT: Student-hosted Governing Board Candidate Forum

2010-10-07T10:44:00.001-07:00

In light of the upcoming Governing Board elections, Southwestern College's Associated Student Organization will be hosting a “Student Candidate Forum” this Thursday, October 7, from 6:30 P.M. to 8 P.M. in Student Union East.

This event has been designed for the student body to ask their own personal questions of the Governing Board candidates pertaining to their education at SWC, and in turn, allow them to formulate their own opinions about who they vote for on November 2.

Please note: Only currently registered Southwestern College students will be permitted to submit questions at this event. However, college staff and the public are welcome to attend.

Event flyer

Thunder, Lightning, and the Sun Is Out!

2010-09-30T11:22:00.000-07:00

Not to be silenced by an oppressive administration, The Southwestern College Sun releases an independent issue of the newspaper today. Read more at The Sun Goes to Press!

Also on the illumination menu today is the Governing Board Candidate Forum, on campus tonight. See our previous post for details.

Come out of the dark; see the light. Save Our Southwestern College.

SWC Governing Board Candidate Forum This Thursday!

2010-09-28T09:51:00.000-07:00

REMINDER: This Thursday, CSEA and SCEA (classified and faculty unions) are sponsoring an open forum for all SWC Governing Board candidates on the November 2 ballot.

Invited candidates, listed in ballot order

Seat #2
Terri Valladolid
Jesseca Saenz-Gonzalez

Seat #4

Yolanda Salcido

Norma L. Hernandez

Seat #5
Tim Nader
William “Bud” McLeroy
Jaime Mercado
Jorge Dominguez

Where: Southwestern College, main campus, Room 751
When: 7:00 p.m. (doors open at 6:45 p.m.)
Cost: FREE; free parking available in Lot J
Campus Map

Format: The format will include a short statement from each of the candidates present and then questions from the public. Questions must be submitted in writing and be directed to the entire panel. Jordan Mills, SWC Speech and Debate coach, will moderate.

Also keep in mind these upcoming opportunities to meet, greet, and support our candidates: Have You Met These Candidates Yet?

All Are Invited: Meet and Greet for Norma L. Hernandez This Friday

2010-09-26T21:22:00.000-07:00

As many of you know, Norma Hernandez, former Superintendent/President of Southwestern College, is running in the current SWC Governing Board election.

Here is another opportunity to meet her in person, ask questions, and gather with like-minded folks who are seriously concerned about the future of our college!

The event will be held on Friday, October 1, 5:00-8:00 pm, at the home of Chuck and Patti Charter in Coronado. The address is 442 I Avenue.

Wine and cheese are on the menu, and I know that Patti and Chuck have been cooking up other tasty delights as well.

Step up and eat the hors d'oeuvres. Talk, make friends. Sounds silly, and yet, ultimately, that's the only thing that works when it comes to real change. . . .

More info on the event.

Meet Candidate Norma Hernandez at Bonitafest!

2010-09-25T09:56:00.000-07:00

Today only, the annual Bonitafest: food, crafts, and fun!

Norma Hernandez, running for Seat #4 on the SWC Governing Board, will be there from 10 am to 4 pm. Look for the Hernandez for Southwestern College Board booth on Bonita Road, and stop by and say hi!

Bonitafest takes place along Bonita Road, approximately two miles east of the 805 Freeway, between Willow Street and Otay Lakes Road. The booths are located in the Bonita Village Shopping Center, McMillin Realty parking lot, and the Bonita Plaza Shopping Center. Bonita Road will be open all day. Parking: Kaiser Permanente (Bonita Road & Willow Street) and Bonita Valley Community Church (4744 Bonita Road).

Award-winning SWC Sun Shut Down

2010-09-24T18:02:00.000-07:00

Twenty-six press awards, and what does the college do to the Southwestern College Sun? Cancel the first issue.

As reported in Southwestern Board Must Go!, twenty-six reporters just received San Diego Press Club Excellence in Journalism Awards. The administration has responded . . . well, it hasn't responded. Nothing. No press release. No "way to go." Nada. (And given that faculty union president Andrew MacNeill sent an email informing SWC Superintendent/President Raj Chopra and PR man Chris Bender at 6:40 this morning, there's really no excuse.)

Shortly afterward, The SWC Sun released the statement, "Publishing Crisis Update: Issue #1 Canceled." The statement points out that district PR claims that they were working to quickly resolve the crisis were "misleading or false."

Also revealed in the statement are four areas of concern:

(1) Suspension of the printing of the Sun.

(2) The threatened arrest of Branscomb [faculty adviser to The Sun] and three students who were stopped by campus police for removing a journalism computer from the journalism lab.

(3) The district's plan to remove the Sun's link from the home page of the college's website.

(4) An administrative prohibition of campus employees from talking to Sun journalists without the permission of district spokesperson Christopher Bender.

By now, the first three are still shocking but familiar to most. The fourth is downright flabbergasting.

How many times does the administration and Board of Southwestern College have to be taken to task for First Amendment violations? And how can they be stopped?

Step 1: VOTE IN A NEW BOARD THIS NOVEMBER!

Watch for mailers that should be arriving soon, and please share and display. Let's Save Our Southwestern College!

Context, Convenience, and Controversy

2010-09-19T16:57:00.000-07:00

As we pointed out in our last post, controversial events easily capture the community's attention--for the moment. A more complete understanding of an issue's scope, its causes and possible solutions, however, requires a fuller grasp of context: what led us to here? how have similar events been handled? how does the current situation compare to those that occurred in the past?

Obviously, the answers to these questions can't be found in PR hack sound-bites. In fact, it's part of the PR hack's job to place a small frame around complex issues, cutting out the context so that only one interpretation is possible: theirs.

Contradiction used by permission
© Gary Taxali

Here, then, to hack the hack are two pieces submitted for your consideration:

1. How (In)Convenient

Citing a policy that hasn't been applied in over fifteen years, SWC administration has halted the publication of the number one college newspaper in the country because the contract ( for a measly $3,000) between the Sun and the company that prints it hasn't been approved by the Governing Board.

How convenient.

The District has stopped the presses just a few weeks before elections involving a majority of Governing Board members will take place. And this decision is even more convenient considering that the Sun has been critical of administration, particularly Superintendent/President Raj Chopra, and the Board.

The District has some funny ideas about what is convenient. Last summer, when the faculty union learned that some teachers had not been paid for their work in June, union leaders took this issue to the District. "It would be inconvenient to pay them for just a few days," the District responded. " We'll make up the difference in their next paycheck."

Convenience is not the issue, the union informed the District. The California Education Code--the law, in other words--requires that faculty be paid on time.

The Ed Code also requires that all District employees be informed of the amount of sick leave they have accrued on their monthly paystubs. This does not happen at SWC, even though the union has been raising this issue with the District for years.

When it is convenient, administration and the Board will dig out a decades-old "policy," which does not have the force of law. But if a law is inconvenient, the same people will simply ignore it.

How hypocritical.

2. (As of Yet) Unpublished Letter to the Editor, San Diego Union-Tribune:

RE: College newspaper threatened with publishing roadblock

Taken out of context, the decision by Southwestern College administrators to halt the publication of our award-winning student newspaper because a contract with a printer hasn't gone out to bid might seem a reasonable, responsible protection of taxpayer money. But the big picture reveals something much different.

First, the shenanigans and dubious ethics involved in awarding multimillion dollar construction contracts to firms who later kick back thousands of dollars to re-elect incumbent Governing Board members shows that District officials aren't particularly concerned about protecting taxpayer money. Giving a $100,000 contract to a public relations firm whose job is to "isolate extremists" reveals the mindset of the SWC Governing Board and administration: Anyone with a differing opinion must be silenced.

This latest attempt to retaliate against the Sun is simply part of a long pattern of retaliation. The faculty adviser, who last year received the most prestigious national award possible for college and university journalism instructors, had his reassigned time eliminated. Just a few days ago, student journalists were threatened with criminal charges because they were taking school-owned laptop computers off campus to do their work.

Criminal charges are not laughable, but administrators' logic is. Laptop computers are designed to be portable. Student journalists routinely cover stories outside the boundaries of the campus, and laptop computers--and school-owned digital cameras, as well--are the tools they use to do their jobs. If all students were forbidden from using school-owned equipment for off-campus school activities, then the the football team would have to leave its helmets and pads behind when it traveled on the road.

Finally, the timing of this latest move against the Sun is curious. The student paper--containing articles critical of administration and the Governing Board--will not go to press just a few weeks before elections involving a majority of Governing Board members take place. Dusting off a decades-old policy, one which has never been enforced, to justify this action is simply another way of silencing dissent.

Philip Lopez
Former President, current Secretary, of SCEA faculty union

Feels Like Old Times

2010-09-17T19:36:00.000-07:00

It was just one year ago that the Save Our Southwestern College blog got its start. The issues at the time: ham-handed administration, threats to freedom of speech, accreditation headed for the rocks.

My, how things haven't changed.

One of our first posts linked to a News 10 story:
College President Accused Of Targeting School Paper

Sounds familiar, don't it?

Posted the same day was a set of links to coverage from The Sun documenting problems with Raj Chopra's management going back to March of 2009:
If No News Is Good News . . .

After that came a series of posts documenting the efforts of people on the ground--faculty, staff, and students--to get the college back on track. In October 2009, nine documents were posted, including a copy of the Academic Senate's Vote of No Confidence in Raj Chopra and materials explaining the importance of Shared Governance (a key area that the Accrediting Commission later found lacking).

Also posted in October '09 were alternatives to the 25% class cuts, a timeline documenting issues with adversarial leadership, other cost-saving suggestions, and the first Governing Board meeting protest, including transcripts of some of the speeches.

But wait! There's more--much more, and if you care to take a deja vu walk down memory lane, just start back in September 2009 and work your way forward. It's a lot of reading, but a lot has been going on for quite some time.

Southwestern's issues (and this blog) didn't start with the teachers' suspensions. That event merely put both the college and the blog on the map. The people who care, the people who know, the people who work in the midst of mismanagement, greed, ignorance, ineptitude, and spite (to name just a few oughta-be deadly sins) have been trying to spread the word, trying to Save Our Southwestern College.

Will you help them? More importantly, will you help the thousands of students who depend on SWC for their education?

Please visit the sites of the candidates currently running against Board incumbents. Please contribute. (See left sidebar.)

Meanwhile, here's the roll call of press pieces on the most recent free speech mess at SWC:

Sun Under Attack (from the SWC Sun)

Southwestern College Bars Student Paper from Printing (from the Huffington Post)

College Newspaper Threatened by Contract Policy (from SignonSanDiego)

Students Claim Administrators Looking to Shut Down Newspaper (from 10 News)

Southwestern College Halts Publication of Student Newspaper (from The Chronicle of Higher Education)

Student Journalists Say College Trying to Squelch Them (from Inside Higher Education)

Now is the time for change. Es tiempo de cambiar. What will you do to make it happen?

The Plot Thickens

2010-09-16T11:10:00.000-07:00

While the SWC administration puts school newspaper The Sun on hold, SWC Vice President of Business Nicholas Alioto spams faculty at their private email addresses. Meanwhile, students rally to raise funds for independent publication of The Sun.

It's official: SWC admins have issued a "cease and desist" order, halting publication of the school newspaper, which is ready to go to press.

Senior staff writer Lyndsay Winkley will be speaking tonight at 7:00 pm at the Eastlake Bonita Democratic Club Meeting at the Bonita library (4375 Bonita Rd, Bonita). She "will be requesting the support, both financial and ethical, of the citizens in our community to help us, as student journalists, fully employ our constitutional rights." You can read more on this issue, including Lyndsay's full email, at Southwestern College Board Must Go!

As the news of this latest act of free speech suppression broke, many faculty were also shocked to find an email from Vice President of Business Nick Alioto in their private home email inboxes. At this point, no one knows how Alioto obtained these private addresses, but suffice it to say that faculty feel concerned and violated.

The email, which makes spurious, unsubstantiated claims about a candidate running against an incumbent in the upcoming Governing Board election, was sent from Nick Alioto's private account at http://www.pbcg.biz, site of the Public Business Consulting Group, Inc., headquartered in Wisconsin. (According to the site, Nick Alioto is or was--it's not clear when the site was last updated--the president/CEO of that company.)

Is this the same company that caused so much trouble for Wisconsin school districts, bilking the public of hundreds of thousands of dollars, with the result that Alioto was effectively run out of town? Why, yes it is! And, unlike Alioto's own specious claims about a candidate, this story is fully documented over at The Writer's Washroom.

Of further interest is Alioto misrepresenting himself as a licensed CPA. Typically signing emails, Nicholas C. A. Alioto, CPA, he implies that he is licensed in the state of California. However, a check at the California Board of Accountancy shows no Nick Alioto, Nicholas Alioto, Nicholas C. A. Alioto, or any other combination we could think of as licensed in the state. According to the California Board, "Only persons who are licensed by the CBA may call themselves a Certified Public Accountant or Public Accountant." (Incidentally, Alioto is not licensed in Wisconsin either; his license expired in 2009.)

The election is just weeks away. Please help Save Our Southwestern College!

Stop the Presses! (says SWC admin)

2010-09-15T16:32:00.000-07:00

Previously, we've discussed the ongoing harassment of reporters and the faculty advisor for The Sun, Southwestern College's award-winning student newspaper (for example, Muzzle, Muzzle and Censorship and The Sun).

Well, the administration is at it again.

Excerpted from an email sent globally to SWC full- and part-time faculty by Janet Mazzarella, SCEA Vice-President:

We want to inform the faculty of some recent actions that have taken place regarding the Southwestern Sun, its advisor, Max Branscomb, and the SWC students that work on college newspaper staff. First, a couple of the students were stopped by campus police when they were moving a journalism computer off campus. Even though this has occurred before when the students participate in competitions or students are pressed to complete a story after business hours, now the students are being threatened with criminal charges by our administration.

Second, we learned today that the administration filed a cease and desist order to stop the newspaper from printing. Apparently, there is a policy that says that the contract for printing has to be approved by the Governing Board. Even though this has never happened in the past, now all of sudden this administration feels compelled to stop the Sun from printing.

There are many other forms of retaliation that the Sun, its advisor, and our students have been forced to endure. While the district may try to claim that it is doing its due diligence in following all regulations, it seems to us like an opportune moment to shut out this important (and legally protected) voice.

Some are wondering if this recent article from The Sun has something to do with this latest act of retaliation. . . .

In the meantime, please also see "A Diagram of Big Construction Payoffs at Southwestern College" at http://www.swcboardmustgo.com/. This post links to a Reader article providing background on the conflicts of interest that drive administrative decision-making at SWC.

Stay tuned. . . .

Make a Difference (damn it) ¡es tiempo de cambiar!

2010-09-11T19:32:00.000-07:00

The November election is just seven weeks away. But the election doesn't begin and end on that first Tuesday. It's happening right now as thousands of absentee ballots are prepared for distribution. It's happening right now as voters make up their minds based on misinformation and spin funded by private interests eager to make a buck and, yes, public money misappropriated to sway the public's own opinion. It's happening right now as the fat cats and people with power pat each other on the back and say, "Don't worry, this one's in the bag!"

And our college's future hangs in the balance.

It's time to make a difference, to step up, to take a few minutes or an hour, to spend a little to get a lot in return: a college with integrity and vision, a college for the students, a college with accreditation. And it won't cost you a dime.

Here's an easy and fun way to help: devote an hour of your time to precinct walking. It's not nearly as off-putting as it sounds. Highly organized, the effort focuses on active voters identified as supportive of education--it's not "cold calling" or door-to-door salesmanship. And walkers have campaign info and work in pairs, so you're not alone. So far, folks whose doors have been knocked on have been very receptive, even inviting walkers in. Please contact Diane Gustafson at diangus15@aol.com or 619-253-7298 for more info. Really, do it. Now. And tell your friends and family!

If you're still not convinced of the seriousness of SWC's situation, read the comments (below) given at last Wednesday's Governing Board meeting. And note that the ethics policy lingers, as the GB saw fit to adjourn before that issue could be addressed and also before the Academic Senate, Faculty Union, Classified Union, and Associated Student Organization reports could be presented in a public setting (a legal requirement).

Governing Board Comments, Sept 8, 2010 (Janet Mazzarella)

I would like to address the proposed policy on the code of ethics, which is part of the agenda for this evening.

Especially in light of our current status of “probation” from WASC, I find that this proposed policy does not adequately address Recommendation 10: The team recommends that the Governing Board establish and implement a formal procedure for handling potential conflict of interest and ethics policy violations and document adherence to the protocol.

Proposed Ethics Policy 2715 has some reference to the Governing Board acting ethically by saying it has an ethical commitment (#2) or should use independent judgment (#6) or avoid of conflict of interest (#12) but clearly these are just words on the paper that this board does not understand.

Twice in the past couple of weeks Trustee Salcido has said that I was unethical because I, in my role as president of the faculty union, sent a letter to various vendors and contractors asking for campaign contributions 4 years ago for Ms. Salcido’s opponent in the last GB election. I do not deny this, although I find it interesting that I cannot find the letter in any of my documents but she has a copy passed on to her by some unknown party. All the same, I agree I did it. I have brought my campaign contributions which show that I received exactly zero dollars from any vendor. And even if I had received campaign contributions, it would not constitute a conflict of interest as I do not vote on their contracts with district. I have no interest in who receives these large bids or any influence over items on the GB agenda. The faculty union is a private enterprise whereas the members of this GB are public officials.

Ms. Salcido on the other hand does have a conflict of interest. It is unfortunate that she cannot see the difference between a private enterprise and a public official that votes on contracts of her donors. Because this board seems to be unclear what constitutes a conflict, I am recommending stronger, more clear language in the ethics policy #2715.

Here are some of Ms. Salcido’s campaign contributions:

Campaign contribution from Christopher Rowe, Business Owner Echo Pacific Construction Inc. on June 2, 2010 of $1000. One month later on July 14, 2010 Ms. Salcido voted approval on a total fixed fee to Echo Pacific Construction of $4 million.

On May 12, 2010, Ms. Salcido voted to approve a contract to Rocky Coast Framers for $151,000. One month later on June 2, 2010 she received a $500 campaign contribution.

I do not see how the public can believe there is not a “pay to play” attitude between the vendors of Southwestern College’s construction projects for the use of the public tax dollars.

Here are just a few of the other construction dollars donated to GB members Yolanda Salcido and Terri Valladolid. I do not have these matched up with voting records, but I do find it interesting who is financing their election campaigns.

The Seville Group: 2500
Gould Electric: 1000
An engineer/Climatec Industry : 250
Able Heating and Air Conditioning: 200
La Jolla Electric: 400
TMT Tile/Marble Corp: 200
Richardson Steel: 200
Standard Drywall: 200
Advance Plumbing Co: 200
CJR Concrete: 400
Infrastructure PAC of the Asso of General Contractors: 2500
HAR Construction: 300

We know that this particular fundraiser on June 2 at the home of Nick Alioto, VP of Finance and controlling party of the bidding process, brought in $35,000 for these two candidates. If that is not a conflict of interest I don't know what is.

Previous faculty union president and current secretary Phil Lopez had this to say:

Last week, I emailed an article, "The Making of a Real College Newspaper," from one of the best sources of commentary on higher education--Inside Higher Ed--to all of you. I did so because of the comments from Trustee Jean Roesch that were published in the online edition of the SWC Sun.

Dr. Roesch was offended by some negative comments published by the Sun--and that's OK. The Sun has been critical--more than once--of me, and I didn't like it, either. But a crucial difference between Trustee Roesch and me is that I'm not a Governing Board member. I don't vote on reassigned time for the advisor to the Sun. Dr. Roesch does.

My concern is Trustee Roesch’s statement that negative articles are somehow bad and that the Sun has "a responsibility to put the college first." That is simply wrong. Southwestern College already has cheerleaders, and we pay their advisor. We have a brand-new PR person, Chris Bender, and we pay him, too. But a college newspaper and the role of its advisor is something else entirely.

Apparently, when student journalists do good work--the Sun was the number one college-newspaper in the US last year—something has gone wrong. We all know what happened: The faculty advisor to the Sun lost his reassigned time.

Let me quote briefly for the IHE article:

"Firing the advisor [or in this case, eliminating his reassigned time] is not the best way to produce a strong student newspaper. The difficult and mature choice is to learn to live with a free student press the same way the government must live with the professional press."

"The Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment knowing full well that the press and the government would be at odds forever. The same healthy battle between leaders and the press must play out on campus, too."

I need to remind you that California has the strongest laws in the country protecting the independence of college newspaper advisors. We don't want to go there, but we will if we have to because the pattern and history of retaliation here is clear.

When the advisor to the Sun first lost his reassigned time, the explanation given to the SCEA was that he was "double-dipping" because he received both a stipend and reassigned time for his work. Compensation in the form of both time and money is a common practice in many California community colleges, and it is not unusual at SWC, either. Department chairs receive a stipend for their work over the summer as well as reassigned time, and Head Athletic Coaches get reassigned time and an eleven-month contract.

A few months later, when this issue was covered in local newspapers and on TV, both the Superintendent/President and the Vice President for Academic Affairs insisted that the ONLY issue was money. "We're in the middle of a budget crisis," they said. "The District simply cannot afford this reassigned time."

You've heard me say--many times--that there is no dire budget crisis at SWC. I'll say it again: We will end the past fiscal year with several million dollars in reserves over and above the seven percent Governing Board reserve that you insist on maintaining,

Furthermore, in late Spring and during the Summer of 09, you approved dozens of reassigned time positions at costs that were wildly inflated. For example, reassigned time for department chairs and Academic Senate officers was reported to cost $1.17 million. You approved this expenditure. The actual cost was only 1/3 of this. The $800,000 difference between what the Board approved and actual costs is one hundred times more than sufficient to pay for reassigned time for the newspaper advisor. So money is not--and never has been--the real issue.

Next, the SCEA and the Academic Senate tried to get reassigned time placed on the Board agenda so you would have the opportunity to make a clear and public decision about our student newspaper. Our requests were ignored twice, and once the issue was agendized as a discussion item, not an action item. No decision could be made.

Finally, in March at the Board meeting in Otay Mesa, reassigned time for the advisor to the Sun appeared on the agenda as an action item. It appeared that the Board was very close to approving it, but then someone pointed out that three other faculty members who had also lost reassigned time were not included in this agenda item. It would have been easy to approve one position in March and the others in April, but the Board decided to consider all four positions the following month.

In April, I thought this issue would be put to rest. Board members praised the Sun and the work of its advisor, and you praised the work done by the coaches of our award-winning debate team, too. "But we can't approve reassigned time for these faculty members," you said. "That would be micromanagement." You also indicated that these positions should be negotiated.

The SCEA agrees. Because reassigned time costs money, it is a form of compensation and is therefore a mandatory subject for bargaining under the provisions of the Education Employment Relations Act. The SCEA, following your direction, brought all current non-contractual reassigned time positions--the Puente Project English instructor and counselor, BSI coordinators, the swimming pool director, everything--to the bargaining table. That's what you said to do. We also included the position of the SLO Coordinator in our list, and we filed an official "Demand to Bargain" the job description and compensation for that position because it's a new one.

Realizing that the Sun position is controversial and that the SLO Coordinator is important for accreditation, the SCEA indicated that we should bargain these positions first. The District said no. We were told that the District did not want to bargain these positions on a "piecemeal" basis. We'd do them in a block, and, furthermore, the District wanted to bargain all contractual reassigned time positions as well.

Of course, that's a huge task that will require considerable time. In the meantime, we have no SLO Coordinator--a position that is crucial to accreditation.

[At this point in my speech, I ran out of time. GB President Yolanda Salcido would not allow me to continue. I ad-libbed for a bit, but I don't remember exactly what I said. What appears below is the remainder of the speech I had written. Please note that the important information the Board needs to know--the SCEA wants to to sit down and negotiate these issues as soon as possible because accreditation is at stake--was not heard by the Governing Board.]

Here’s where things get complicated and uncomfortable: Last week, the District posted an internal job offering for the SLO Coordinator, listing the job description and compensation for this position. However, neither of these has been bargained, much less agreed to, by the SCEA. Because we have filed a “Demand to Bargain” these issues, the District’s decision to move ahead without negotiating constitutes an Unfair Labor Practice. Of course, we will file a ULP complaint with the State, but this action also appears to violate the Board’s direction to negotiate all non-
contractual reassigned time positions. It is also entirely self-contradictory: The District says it does not intend to bargain these positions on a “piecemeal” basis, but by separating the SLO Coordinator position from the others, it is doing exactly that.

I need to be absolutely clear here. The SCEA is ready, willing, and able to sit down with the District’s negotiating team to discuss the SLO Coordinator position. We can begin tomorrow. But the SCEA must also insist that we discuss reassigned time for the advisor to the Sun at the same time.

In the language of interest-based bargaining, the SCEA and the District share a strong common interest in maintaining our accreditation by moving forward with the SLO Coordinator position. However, the SCEA also has a strong interest—one we share with students and our entire community as well—in a free press, students’ First and Fourth Amendment rights, and the independence of our college newspaper advisor. Apparently, the District does not share this interest. Apparently, the District is willing to do anything—even risking our accreditation—to eliminate reassigned time for the advisor to the Sun.

Let me be even clearer: The SCEA cannot and will not sacrifice one of these sets of interests to preserve the other. This is a battlefield we are willing to die on. But it is a battlefield the District has created.

This is it. If you care about the future of education in the South Bay, now is the time to act. Later will be too late. . . .

In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

SWC Faculty Union President Requests Records on Focuscom

2010-09-08T19:22:00.001-07:00

Under the California Public Records Act, SCEA President Andrew MacNeill has requested from SWC any and all documents related to Focuscom compensation.

(For background on Focuscom, see our posts Money In, Money Out and Community Group Responds.)

Given the district's typical response to such requests, we're guessing this issue will escalate to the next level.

In the meantime, here's the actual request in full:

From: Andrew MacNeill On Behalf Of SCEA
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 2:16 PM
To: Chris Bender
Cc: Michael Kerns; Nicholas Alioto; SCEA; Andrew MacNeill
Subject: Information Request

Dear Mr. Bender,

I am sending this request while bccing all faculty. It is important for the campus community to know how their SWC funds, Prop R or Prop AA funds, or any other funds are being spent. This email will let them know I have formally requested the records contained within the attached memorandum (see below) on their behalf.

Memorandum

To: Chris Bender, Community and Media Relations, Southwestern College

CC: Michael Kerns, Vice President of Human Resources, Southwestern College
Nicolas Alioto, Vice President of Business and Financial Affairs, Southwestern College

From: Andrew J. MacNeill, President, Southwestern College Education Association

Date: 9/8/2010

Re: California Public Records Act-Any and All Forms of Compensation Given to FOCUSCOM Inc., Dan Hom, Danny Hom

I am requesting all records and documents, which contain the following information: Any and all forms of compensation to FOCUSCOM Inc., Dan Hom, Danny Hom, paid or supplied by the Southwestern Community College District or its Prop R Project Management Contractor, Seville Construction Services, between November 1, 2009, and September 8, 2010. This request is legally made under the California Public Records Act (6250 ETSEQ-Government Code).

I am specifically asking for any and all forms of compensation including but not limited to the following: Consulting fees, Contract fees, health and welfare benefits, travel expenses, office
expenses, hospitality and entertainment reimbursements, car and mileage compensation, and any and all other forms of financial or in-kind compensation to FOCUSCOM Inc., Dan Hom, and Danny Hom, paid or supplied by the Southwestern Community College District or its Prop R Project Management Contractor, Seville Construction Services, between November 1, 2009, and September 8, 2010. I request the material to be made available in a timely fashion (within ten days) in accordance with Governmental Code 6257.

If the District claims that any requested records or documents are exempt from the California Public Records Act it is requested that the District provide the specific statutory information that supports its claim in this matter in order that I be able to attend to legal action in this matter.

You can contact me at 619-421-6700 x5567 and/or scea@swccd.edu when the above materials are available for pick-up.

Thanking you in advance.

Sincerely,

Andrew J. MacNeill
President, Southwestern College Education Association (SCEA)

Stay tuned!

Board Meeting Tonight! 7 pm on Main Campus

2010-09-08T15:56:00.001-07:00

It promises to be lively one, as community group Crossroads II speaks out on the agreement with Focuscom.

Crossroads president Peter Watry sent the following email to supporters:

Date: September 7, 2010 2:55:34 PM PDT

Subject: SWC - HOW THEY ARE SPENDING PROP R BOND MONEY

Crossroaders,

We have heard from many of you that you are outraged that Southwestern College has signed a $100,000 contract with a company called Focuscom, Inc. to mount a PR campaign to convince the public that the College is spending Prop R funds appropriately. As far as we are aware, no one doubted that the funds were being spent appropriately. Ironically, we are now convinced that they are not being spent appropriately.

Prop R was a $389,000,000 bond measure that asked voters to raise their own property taxes to enable the college to upgrade its facilities. Prop R was passed in November 2008. The Crossroads II Board of Directors supported Prop R, and urged CII members to vote in favor of it. And we now know by reading the contract with Focuscom that our own property tax money is being spent to manipulate our views!

In response to the concerns of our members, I wrote a letter to the college president and board members requesting that an item be put on the agenda of the September 8 Board meeting to discuss this $100,000 contract. We have since reviewed the agenda of the September 8 Board meeting, and the item we requested be put on the agenda is not there. The college has not even afforded us the courtesy of a reply to our letter. So we urge you to attend the College Board meeting on Wednesday, September 8 at 7 pm and inform the Board members how you feel about this waste of our hard-earned taxpayer dollars. The details are below:

Southwestern College Governing Board Meeting

Wednesday September 8 at 7 PM

Room 214 at the College

Speak under Agenda item No. 10 - Oral Communication

To speak to the Board you must fill out a yellow request card after you arrive at the meeting. Then you can speak when Agenda Item 10 comes up.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Peter Watry
Acting President

For more commentary on this latest development, please see the blog SWC Board Must Go!

Also, please consider attending this Friday's fundraiser for alternative Governing Board candidate Tim Nader. We can make a difference!

Community group responds to revelations of fishy dealings between SWC and PR firm

2010-08-28T08:41:00.000-07:00

In a previous post, we referenced Susan Luzzaro's piece in the San Diego Reader, "Isolate, Expose, Avoid." That article described SWC's $100,000 agreement with San Diego marketing firm Focuscom, Inc. for public relations services related to Prop R construction. Many of these "services" are designed to keep the public in line and quell debate.

Now, you can read the full agreement and plan, signed by SWC Vice President of Business and Financial Affairs Nicholas Alioto.

Community group Crossroads II did, and they are understandably shocked. President Peter Watry sent the email below to group supporters:

From: Crossroads II crossroadsii@cox.net>
Subject: Feel Dizzy? If Not, You Soon Will...
To:
Date: Tuesday, August 24, 2010, 11:02 PM

...because you are about to be spun. We learned from an article recently published in the San Diego Reader (http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2010/aug/17/isolate-expose-avoid/ ) that in March Southwestern College approved a $100,000 contract with Focuscom Inc., for a "Proposition R Public Affairs Plan." The actual Plan approved by the College administration is now available on the Reader website, and we have attached it to this message. The key objectives of the Public Affairs Plan are to: Maintain momentum that led to approval of Prop R; Isolate and expose extremists; Identify, cultivate and engage supporters; and Manage the media. After reading this Plan, we are stunned. We are stunned to read that "All public affairs tactics will be geared toward driving target audiences to information sources controlled by the College." We are stunned to read that "Names culled from supporters lists will be used to draft and submit letters to the Editors and blog entries that support the land use efforts of the College." We are stunned to read that Crossroads II is a key target of this initiative. And we were most stunned to learn that Southwestern College is using our own money to spin us.

So exactly who is Focuscom Inc? According to the Focuscom website, " Our highly experienced team implements customized decisive planning in order to influence the media and impact the right audiences." Turns out that the President of Focuscom is Dan Hom. A former Chula Vista City Planning Commissioner, Dan Hom was a consultant for the Yes on Prop R campaign as well as the former Vice President of the Southwestern College Foundation. Talk about insider dealing....

SWC is expected to more than double in enrollment by 2020, up to 50,000 students, according to the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. In 2008 the voters in the district served by Southwestern College voted to increase their own property taxes to the tune of $389 million to help the college accommodate this new growth. And now Southwestern College is using $100,000 of our property tax money to spin us about the projects our money is financing. A few questions: Was this expenditure approved by the Prop R Citizens Bond Oversight Committee? According to the Bylaws of the Citizens Bond Oversight Committee, one of its duties is to inform the public and the Board concerning the District's expenditure of bond proceeds. The Committee met last month, after the contract with Focuscom was approved. Was the Oversight Committee informed about the contract? Was the Board of Governors informed? How was Focuscom chosen for this contract? Were other firms considered? Was there a competitive bidding process? Exactly who are the "extremists" that the Public Affairs Plan will cause to be isolated and exposed? Shouldn't the Southwestern College Board demand that this contract be rescinded?

If you wish to express your views on this issue you can reach members of the Southwestern College Board as follows:

Yolanda Salcido, Board President ysalcido@swccd.edu

Terri Valladolid tvalladolid@swccd.edu

Jean Roesch jroesch@swccd.edu

Jorge Dominguez jdominguez@swccd.edu

Nick Aguilar picknickaguilar@cox.net

Thanks for caring about our community,
Peter Watry, Acting President, Crossroads II, and
Professor Emeritus, Southwestern College

By the way, the next regularly scheduled meeting of the SWC Governing Board is Wednesday, Sept. 8, at 7:00 pm on the main campus, Board Room 214. See you there--it should be a good one!

Mo' Money!

2010-08-25T15:27:00.000-07:00

You've hopefully already seen the recent San Diego Union-Tribune article, "College VP Raised Money from Contractors He Oversees."

In the article, Tanya Sierra reports that Southwestern College's Vice President for Business and Financial Affairs, Nicholas Alioto, hosted a May 20th fundraiser for incumbent Governing Board candidates Yolanda Salcido and Terri Valladolid. Donors at the event included Seville Construction Services and Echo Pacific Construction, both of which subsequently received generous contracts from Prop R funds ($2.7 million and $4 million, respectively).

According to Sierra, "The officials said there is no link between the contracts and the contributions, but critics are skeptical."

That's putting it mildly. If the 104 comments (including some excuse-making by Alioto himself) so far are any indication, the community is outraged.

One commenter summarized the situation thusly: "You have a board that is ignoring the accreditation issues that the college faces for the first time in 50 years in the college's history in favor of kingdom building and collecting favors from contractors. Hundreds of teachers and staff have been let go with the cut of 40% of classes in the past 2 years and the budget reserves continue to swell. Teachers and staff are trying to save the school for the folks they are there for - STUDENTS."

If you haven't yet had an opportunity to read the article, please use the link above to find it on SignOn San Diego. If you saw it before, please go back and catch up on the comments that have been posted in the meantime. And either way, please add your voice to the discussion.

"Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away." --Elvis Presley

Money In, Money Out

2010-08-18T09:53:00.000-07:00

A new piece in the San Diego Reader, "Isolate, Expose, Avoid," draws attention to more questionable SWC administrator practices, both ethical and financial.

In the article, author Susan Luzzaro reveals that the college has entered into an agreement, signed by SWC vice president of financial affairs Nick Alioto, with a San Diego marketing firm for public relations services related to Prop R construction. The price? $100,000.

Prop R, voter-approved in 2008, grants $389 million to the college for new construction and improvements. Needless to say, that amount of money has developers frothing at the mouth and eager to quash any public dissent that could distract from their endeavors.

Focuscom Inc. to the rescue. According to documents unearthed by Luzzaro, Focuscom promises to "Maintain momentum that led to approval [of Prop R]; isolate and expose extremists; identify, cultivate and engage diverse supports; manage the media." For more details that will enrage any thinking member of "the public," please read the entire article.

There are several points not covered in the article (though some mentioned in comments) that bear consideration:

Dan Hom, President of Focuscom, Inc., is either a current (if you follow the comments) or former (if you check Hom's online bio and/or the very scant records on SWC's public web site) officer of the SWC Foundation. In other words, someone who is or used to be responsible for bringing money into the college is now cashing out.
SWC already has a well-paid employee to manage public communication: Chris Bender. Providing information to the community is his job, yet apparently he needs $100K worth of help when it comes to Prop R.
Developers who focus on public monies are highly organized. These are not blue-collar guys in hardhats defending themselves.
One popular organization, CASH (no, we're not making this up!) hosts regular conferences and workshops. The Seville Group (winner of big Prop R bids) is a member, as is just about every taxpayer-funded contractor and consulting firm in the state. For a recent example, see their list of sponsors for a 2008 conference. Really, scroll through, and keep scrolling. You'll get a taste of the competition for taxpayer money.
CASH ostensibly stands for (California's) Coalition for Affordable Student Housing. But their newsletter is called the CASH Register. Pretty transparent, no?

One thing is sure: the guys with the big bucks count on us (the folk with the few bucks) to not pay attention to this stuff. We don't have lobbyists and coalitions and organizations looking out for our interests. We can't afford it.

But we can still make noise. We can still push on so-called "public" interests that should be paying attention. . . .

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does” -- Margaret Mead

SWC in the News, Again

2010-08-12T19:01:00.001-07:00

In the San Diego Reader, "Southwestern Suitors" points out some thought-provoking relationships between campaign contributors to Governing Board incumbents Terri Valladolid and Yolanda Salcido.

As the November 2010 election looms, contractors, architects, landscapers, and other folk who have absolutely nothing to do with education (beyond vying for taxpayers' dollars) have been lining up to line the campaign coffers of Valladolid and Salcido.

With Proposition R monies on the table (to the tune of $389 million), it's no wonder the construction industry has come a-courtin'.

And, to be honest, it's not surprising that Valladolid and Salcido would sit up and listen. Those are some big bucks talking.

It's dismaying, however, to realize that this is what community college governance has come to: a group of insiders, mutually profiteering off each others' endeavors.

We don't think that's what education should be about.

What do you think?

Please read the article and post your (thoughtful!) comments.

Are You Listening, SWC Board and Admin?

2010-07-28T16:36:00.000-07:00

While the SWC public relations machine churns out its own good-news press releases, here are some news items it's bound to overlook.

Cited in this post:

From the Chronicle of Higher Education, "Great Colleges to Work For: At Wake Tech Community College, Employees Know Their Voices Will Be Heard" and "Honor Roll"
From the San Diego Union-Tribune, "College District Adding Classes: One-time Sources Tapped For Funding"

Pat Flynn, writing for the San Diego Union Tribune reports that "the San Diego Community College District is reversing a two-year trend of class reductions and adding 1,150 classes" for the upcoming Fall term. The district includes City College, Mesa College, and Miramar College.

The classes are being funded by reserve savings. District Chancellor Constance Carroll points out the funds could have been left in the reserve, but "our board, all of us, think this is the best thing to do with double-digit unemployment . . . and all the students who can't get into SDSU because of their budget cuts."

We applaud this decision by the San Diego Community College District Board and Chancellor Carroll. SWC, are you listening?

Similar class savings could have been realized at SWC if only the board and Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra had listened to faculty, staff, students, and community members over two years ago, when concerns about institutional organization, budget decisions, and governance issues were first raised. (This blog, in fact, was started as a way to catalog and communicate these concerns to the larger community.)

Instead Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra and Governing Board members, in particular current president Yolanda Salicido and former president Terri Valladolid, have continued down a path of top-down management that has led to dismaying results, including record-breaking class cuts, national notoriety for civil rights violations, and threatened loss of accreditation.

Compare the governance of SWC to that of Wake Tech Community College, which was recently singled out in a Chronicle of Higher Education report, "Great Colleges to Work For." According to The Chronicle, North Carolina's Wake Tech stands out as "a college where faculty and staff members say they can openly discuss job issues and concerns with administrators." Much of the credit goes to Wake Tech president Stephen C. Scott, who made openness and a culture of collaboration priorities from the beginning. The result is a climate of trust and rapport between administration, faculty, and staff, where everyone works together to resolve problems.

It should come as no surprise, then, that 30 of 39 Great Colleges cited "Collaborative Governance" as the top reason making their college "great." (Also frequently mentioned by these model colleges were "Respect and Appreciation" and "Confidence in Senior Leadership.")

In contrast, according to the WASC action letter notifying SWC of its probationary status, the college falls seriously short in this area: "The team recommends that the college set as a priority fostering an environment of trust and respect for all employees and students that allows the college community to promote administrative stability and to work together for the good of the college. The team further recommends that the college establish a written process and structure providing faculty, staff, administrators, and students a substantial voice in decision-making processes."

SWC, are you listening?

---

Further reading from this blog:

Southwestern College on Probation
A Note to Students and the Community

SWC in the News

2010-07-23T17:32:00.000-07:00

Yesterday's issue of the San Diego Reader features an article titled "Southwestern College's Proper Snack Bar."

In the article, author Susan Luzzaro highlights several questionable spending decisions made by the SWC Governing Board and Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra.

The article focuses on the continued outsourcing of tasks for which the college already has salaried personnel: communication services, a pension consultant, a snack-bar consultant, and a technology consultant. The cost of these contracts exceeds $235,000.

For more details on this dubious spending, please see the entire article, and be sure to check out comments from the community as well.

You Are Cordially Invited

2010-07-18T14:37:00.000-07:00

Special fundraising reception honoring
Norma Hernandez
Candidate for Southwestern College Board,
Seat #4

Friday, July 30, 2010
5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Hosted by
Roger and Norma Cazares
45 El Rancho Vista
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(Off Hilltop Drive, one block north of H Street)

Please RSVP your attendance to Norma Cazares at (619) 422-0432 or
via email at: nacazares@aol.com

See this flyer for more details, and see you there!

Upcoming Events!

2010-07-07T11:26:00.000-07:00

This week, two events you won't want to miss!

Tonight:
Meet and Greet for 3rd Seat on SWC Governing Board!
Date: Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Time: 5:30 pm- 7 pm
Presentations/Q&A: 7 pm- 8 pm
Location: POSH Bar, 683 Broadway, Chula Vista, CA
Meet and Greet Flyer

Suggestion Minimum Donation: $25 Advance/$30 at the door
RSVP to Janet Mazzarella at jmazzarella1@cox.net or Andrew Rempt at
acrempt@gmail.com

Friday:
Tim Nader for Southwestern College Board Fundraiser
Date: Friday, July 9, 2010
Time: 5 p.m.-8 p.m.
Location: Villa Capri, 2330 Proctor Valley Road, Chula Vista, CA
Fundraiser Flyer

See you there!

Muzzle, Muzzle, Who's Got the Muzzle?

2010-06-17T15:45:00.000-07:00

Turns out it's Chris Bender, in charge of SWC Community and Media Relations.

The following is adapted from the “When Will They Ever Learn?” file, SCEA (SWC faculty union) Newsletter:

As we previously reported, Southwestern College’s administration has won a national award from a prestigious institution, The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression. Due to the Chopra administration’s reaction to a peaceful student protest which resulted in the suspension of four faculty members, it was awarded the Jefferson Muzzle. The Jefferson Center created this annual award to call “attention to those who in the past year forgot or disregarded Mr. Jefferson’s admonition that freedom of speech ‘cannot be limited without being lost.’” (http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/).

This award is the latest result of the Chopra administration’s egregious behavior in regards to students and faculty speaking out against wrong-headed decisions and mismanagement, and just as the faculty suspensions before it, this award made national news (see our earlier post for a list of the outlets and articles). Naturally, it was also covered by our own Southwestern Sun, a paper whose work has won awards of the honorable sort, in their April 13-26, 2010 edition. (See "College Administration Named One of Nation's Worst First Amendment Violators")

Chris Bender, PR man for Chopra and the Board, took issue with the article in the Sun, and felt it was appropriate to respond by emailing the student who wrote the article to complain that the administration’s point of view wasn’t presented to their liking. Here are his issues as quoted from the email he sent to the student:

When we talked, you indicated this would be a small item. Conversely, it’s the lead item in the paper. If you were changing the story in any way, I believe I should have been informed so I could have decided if the college’s response was appropriate.
The college’s response (my quote) is literally the last item in the story, whereas the story is front-loaded with quotes from other people. To me, that is not balanced. We deserve the opportunity to respond and respond early, especially if the story is about a member of the administration. They way this story is set up, no one would even know our view if they didn’t make the jump (and the jump isn’t even on the correct page).
You cite VP Alioto when VP Alioto is not even mentioned in the public documents released by the Jefferson foundation: http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzzle-archive-2010/#item08. Such a citation is misleading. The last line of the public release clearly states: “Southwestern College’s administration clearly merits a 2010 Jefferson Muzzle.”
I’d like a quick response on all of these points.
(Chris Bender, Friday, April 30, 2010 10:31 AM)

Now we could go point by point, and in fact, Sun advisor Max Branscomb, also a winner of honorable awards and the man who should have received the email, did just that, but the email speaks for itself. Even after receiving their Muzzle and being named “one of the nation’s worst First Amendment violators” as the headline from the Sun declares, the Chopra administration continues to attack the First Amendment by attempting to intimidate a student journalist.

It should also be pointed out that in the article in question, Bender refers to the suspension of the four faculty members and the Muzzle award as an “issue” of “public safety.” He goes on to say that “the Jefferson Center has confused protecting free speech with protecting people.” This is a curious assertion for anyone who was actually there at the time of the event, as Bender wasn’t, and even more curious in light of the fact that the Chopra administration has failed to devise an emergency notification system for the campus as required by the Clery Act, federal legislation designed to ensure colleges take steps to protect their people.

Section 68.46(g) of Clery states that SWC must establish, “Procedures to immediately notify the campus community upon the confirmation of a significant emergency or dangerous situation involving an immediate threat occurring on campus.” To date, the college hasn’t developed such procedures and shows no signs of doing so.

The Chopra administration is willing to harass students and faculty in the name of public safety, but comply with the law? Not so much.

But wait, isn’t there a Freedom of Expression committee working to right all of these wrongs? Sure, and the ACLU has responded to the committee’s proposed policy and procedures with a six-page letter dated May 7, 2010 outlining the Constitutional issues with the new policy that’s being brought to the Board for a first reading at their June meeting. The ACLU’s objections include the fact that the new procedure “unconstitutionally authorizes censorship based on the content of speech,” and that the “Permit provision presents Constitutional problems.”

Furthermore, FIRE has been excluded from the revision process entirely, as noted in a May 12, 2010 letter from the organization: “While FIRE was initially invited to offer input into the drafting process, we were subsequently denied the opportunity to do so.” The letter concludes with the following:

A fundamental condition of teaching and learning in any accredited public institution of higher learning in the United States is that the institution respects basic First Amendment freedoms. For many months now, SWC has proven it does not do so. Not only does SWC maintain an unconstitutional policy, but it has failed to produce a replacement policy that passes constitutional muster.

The SCEA finds it appalling that the Chopra administration, with the blessing of the Board, continues to operate in this manner. Its initial actions resulted in national condemnation, but instead of being humbled and attempting to ameliorate the situation, they continue down the same path. Chris Bender spams our email day in and day out with missives that laud this administration and Board at the same time they try to smother the First Amendment rights of any who would disagree with their wrongheaded decisions through intimidation and arrogant disregard. They hide behind claims of “public safety” while flaunting federal law. They continue to bring shame and dishonor to our college, and they show no signs of stopping.

It's Earlier than You Think! (So mark your calendar!)

2010-06-13T19:53:00.001-07:00

The November election--including the vote determining several SWC Governing Board seats--may seem a season or two away, but absentee ballots will be available early October, so it's time to get hopping!

A week from Friday, candidate Norma Hernandez will be holding a kick-off event, June 25, 5:00-8:00 p.m. at the home of Fernando and Adela García, 1060 Abarca Ct., Chula Vista, CA 91910.

All are welcome!

If you'd like to rsvp, contact hernandez4swc@cox.net. If you have questions, call (619) 479-0917. For more information, see this flyer.

Hope to see you there!

And the Muzzle Goes to . . . .

2010-04-13T19:30:00.000-07:00

The Administration of Southwestern College!

That's right folks, Dr. Chopra & Co. are again making headlines with their receipt of a not-so-coveted 2010 Jefferson Muzzle. The award was granted by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, in part "for promulgating and enforcing a policy limiting even peaceful and non-disruptive protests to a designated 'free speech' patio."

One of ten winners, the SWC Admin has the distinction of being the only community college thus recognized. Way to go, guys!

A sampling of coverage:

Greg Lukianoff for the Huffington Post: Muzzle Tov, Southwestern College and Your "Free Speech Patio"!

William Creeley for FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education): Southwestern College Receives Jefferson "Muzzle" Award for Egregious Censorship

Dissent the Blog: Southwestern College administrative rat bastards get major "muzzle" prize

CBS News: Free Speech Group Gives "Muzzle" Awards

The story has also appeared in USA Today, Fox News, and countless other news outlets, both mainstream and specialized. (Try a Google search of "muzzle award" "Southwestern College" and you'll get over 5,000 results.)

Governing Board Matters

2010-04-05T19:11:00.000-07:00

Yes, it does.

First, in case you haven't noticed, tonight the Governing Board is holding (as we speak) yet another "special" "closed" meeting regarding the evaluation of Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra. We've lost count of how many of these meetings have been held so far, but suffice it to say that the faculty's previous evaluation hasn't been a factor.

Meanwhile, speculation rages on the outcome: will Chopra be greeted by a buy-out? or another hefty raise?

Second, the SCEA PAC recently released candidates' statements for the upcoming Board election:

Below are statements written by the candidates in response to the following question: “Imagine that we are telling our faculty about you. Provide a short paragraph that we may use as a sound bite when describing your candidacy.”

Norma Hernandez:
I bring 31 years of community college experience working at various levels, from faculty to management and as a successful CEO at Southwestern College. My focus has always been on student achievement and in working collegially with faculty, staff, administrators, and students to support an environment that is conducive to teaching and learning. I am a firm supporter of the concept of shared governance; have implemented processes that are inclusive in decision making; and practiced transparency and open dialogue with all groups and individuals on campus. I am a problem solver and consensus builder and I care deeply that Southwestern College continue to become a premier institution of higher education for the communities it serves. Throughout the years, I have built strong ties to various community groups and continue to be involved with business and workforce organizations and with grassroots community groups.

Tim Nader:
Tim has previously been elected as Mayor of Chula Vista and was also elected twice to the Chula Vista City Council. Tim is experienced in handling complex issues and large public budgets. As a city official, he explicitly recognized the importance of Southwestern College to the future of the South Bay. Most of Tim's family were professional educators - his dad taught education at Fresno State before moving to Chula Vista, where he was a school teacher for 25 years, his mom was a credentialed teacher who substituted in local schools and his sister was a high school teacher in Riverside County. Tim has a strong sense of the importance of education to individuals and to the community as a whole, the importance of retaining and listening to experienced faculty, and the importance of academic freedom. Tim also has a strong record of understanding the role of elected officials in overseeing the performance of appointed officials and making sure employee and community input is given serious consideration in decision-making. With our support, Tim can be part of a stronger Board that will respect and listen to faculty, and restore the respect of the community.

Mitch Thompson:
I have come to know the faculty of Southwestern. I believe in the goodness, decency, commitment, dedication and wisdom of the faculty of Southwestern. How dare anyone stand in the way of their lifelong mission and purpose to educate others!! I will provide leadership and decision making that all will be proud of. I will stand with the faculty and make change happen so that noble mission can again be fulfilled to its greatest potential. I will bring back democratic principles to the governance of Southwestern College. I will make decisions that are based on full consensus building with faculty being at the center of that effort. The people of Southwestern College will again see a team of people dedicated to excellence in education moving in a common direction for the citizens of the South Bay. We will come out of this dark period of Southwestern's history with a renewed sense of common purpose and a renewed hope that we can achieve the great potential and hope that education has always brought to our community and its prosperity.

Budget Stew

2010-03-24T20:16:00.000-07:00

Recently, the SCEA (faculty union) and Vice President of Business and Financial Affairs Nicholas Alioto have challenged each others' budget interpretations. The history of this debate is covered in the most recent issue of the Sun, and we have also published the union's view.

At the March 10 Governing Board meeting, VP Alioto presented his side of the story, at points directly challenging union claims in an exhausting, um, we mean exhaustive PowerPoint presentation of almost 60 slides.

Mr. Alioto felt this was inadequate, however, and in a campus-wide email sent on March 12, he promised a written transcript:

The link below will take you to the PDF of the presentation made at the GB meeting this week. Of course, without having been there, you cannot truly gain a full understanding so we are also working on some type of written update as well.

http://www.swccd.edu/Pdfs/BudgetPPT3-10-10.pdf

Although the "written update" is thus far not available, you can be treated to the entire show, complete with voiceover. (Our apologies to the hearing impaired on VP Alioto's behalf. Apparently neither accessibility considerations nor federal law were an issue here).

SCEA responded to Alioto's report in the form of an Informational Alert, which will make perfect sense once you endure the PowerPoint and review our earlier post.

Read All About It!

2010-03-19T10:58:00.001-07:00

A new edition of the Southwestern College Sun is out, full of timely updates as well as head-scratching news.

Here are some of our favorites:

Hernandez, Nader, Thompson set to run: The article announces a slate of challengers for this November's Governing Board election. Former SWC Superintendent/President Norma Hernandez, former Chula Vista mayor Tim Nader, and sitting Chula Vista City Council member Mitch Thompson will be running against current board members Yolanda Salcido and Terri Valladolid. (Jorge Dominguez holds the third seat but says he won't be running again.)

No word yet on what the match-up will be, but the SCEA faculty union has endorsed the candidates and pledged PAC funding in support. Stay tuned for more news on fundraising opportunities.

Union says college is running up a surplus: Why did the college cancel 429 class sections this Spring and turn away thousands of students while it had millions in the bank? Faculty union president Phil Lopez continues to question the Board on this urgent issue.

Committees to attack probation: In a report describing the college's efforts to meet accreditation goals, Governing Board President Yolanda Salcido mysteriously blames staff on the ground for the college's problems: "There have been a lot of different board members. . . . There have been a lot of presidents. There have been a lot of administrations, but what's been here consistent is the staff and the management as well as the managers who actually do the running of the district."

Apparently, Salcido missed the part of the accreditation report that said all those folks were doing a fine job while problems clearly originated higher up the food chain. Further, Salcido denies any responsibility on the part of the board: "It's beyond what we can do up here."

We're not sure where "up here" is but suggest Salcido take a look at 7 Things Never to Say to Your Boss. And yes, Yoli, we the voters are your boss.

Finally, not reported in The Sun but definitely of note is the Continuing Revolving Door at SWC:

At a time when Southwestern College must meet multiple areas of improvement by conducting pivotal research and providing the data for the October Accreditation deadline, our Dean of Research, Evaluation, and Planning was suddenly fired by the Governing Board on March 10 with no explanation to faculty and staff.

Faculty and staff are diligently working to meet the additional workload of the Accreditation requirements and have literally had the rug pulled out from under them.

Every college must have a functioning research office to meet the demands of accreditation. Our faculty and staff have been struggling to meet Accreditation demands with no Office of Research for the last 5 years, and we once again have none.

Throughout Dr. Chopra’s first year, when he was still willing to meet with faculty, we requested that the re-establishment of a research office be a priority as it is critical for Accreditation.

He did not replace our Director of Research; instead during one of his two major reorganizations in a year, Dr. Chopra elevated the position to a Dean and added many additional non-research responsibilities. It is an undoable job now.

The current Dean had just started in Nov. last fall. It's unclear what could have happened so egregious it was worth endangering yet again our Accreditation status, but we need this key position for Accreditation here now, and an improvement plan with prioritization of tasks based on Accreditation would have made a lot more sense. What is the plan now for the research we must have by Oct. 2010?

Board Meeting Tonight!

2010-03-10T07:16:00.001-08:00

Presentations include faculty awards:

Professional Leadership: Max Branscomb
Teaching Excellence: Jackie Thomas
Adjunct Faculty: Henry Aronson

Come celebrate SWC's best and brightest!

Then stay for what is sure to be a creative budget presentation from Nick Alioto.

The public portion of the meeting begins at 7 pm, Rm 214 on the main campus.

Meeting agenda

Denied!

2010-03-07T11:15:00.000-08:00

VP Alioto Denies Blurting, While Student Denied Artistic Expression

During last week's SWC Street Painting Festival, a student was prevented from rendering her drawing of the three professors suspended this past October.

As the student points out, the drawing (at left) is a positive representation that criticizes no one. College authorities, however, found it controversial and said that it didn't relate to the festival's theme of Women's History Month.

The student remarks: "The events that happened last October until today were and are still a part of women's history. Professor [Dinorah Guadiana-]Costa, I, and a lot of female students were there! That's a slap to a lot of people's faces."

Meanwhile, Vice President for Business and Financial Affairs Nick Alioto had no trouble exercising his right to free expression at a recent Governing Board meeting. As reported in the Southwestern College Sun, "while Trustee Nick Aguilar was speaking to reassigned time and discussing the adviser's [to the newspaper] job, Alioto blurted out, 'The guy's a fucking idiot.'"

In an email message to all faculty and staff, Alioto later offered a correction, where he denies blurting, states that Nick Aguilar is not a "fucking idiot," and apologizes to a "hypothesized" fucking idiot:

There is an inappropriate statement that I made at the board meeting to another staff member. It was certainly not blurted out. Someone, however, did overhear it and report it to others. The comment was not directed at the individuals hypothesized in the paper. I have met personally with the person it was directed at and apologized and did it the day after the meeting. I apologize for making the comment to begin with.

Thank goodness that's all cleared up!

Evaluation Still Matters: A Suggestion

2010-03-05T17:22:00.000-08:00

As the Governing Board prepares to evaluate Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra, faculty union president Phil López offers the following suggestion in an open letter to the Board and college employees:

From: Philip Lopez

Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 1:30 PM

To: 'Pick Nick Aguilar'; Jorge Dominguez; Jean Roesch; Yolanda Salcido; Terri Valladolid

Cc: Fulltime Academic; Adjunct Faculty; Classified Contract

Subject: S/P evaluation: A suggestion

As part of its responsibility to evaluate the Superintendent/President, the Governing Board is attempting to create an evaluation instrument with goals that are fair, objective and measurable. Here is a suggestion:

GOAL: Every year, the Actual Ending Balance as reported in the CCFS – 311 report should be within 10 percent of the budgeted ending balance for that year.

For example, if the budgeted ending balance for fiscal year 09 – 10 is $8.133 million (which it is), then the Actual Ending Balance reported in the CCFS – 311 report that will be issued in October, 2010 should be no more than $8.946 million.

Of course, my 10 percent suggestion is just that—a suggestion. The Board could choose another number, or it could require that the actual ending balance be “reasonably close” to the projected ending balance.

And that’s precisely the point: During the past three years, the differences between projected ending balances and actual ending balances have NOT been reasonably close. On the contrary, in fiscal year 07 – 08, budget projections were off by 56 percent; in 08 – 09, they were off by 148 percent; and this year (as of 12/31/09), they are off by 86 percent.

Governing Board members believe that this year, SWC is operating on a budget deficit of nearly $6 million; however, it is a virtual certainty that this year will produce a budget surplus. In plain English, we will NOT lose money this year. Instead, we’re going to make money.

The budget drives nearly every decision made at SWC. Relatively accurate budget projections should be required of the Superintendent/President or his designee. Otherwise, we might find that we’re cutting services to our students while we’re putting taxpayer money into an unnecessarily large reserve fund, one that’s nearly three times what is recommended by the Chancellor’s Office. We might find that we’re cutting classes by nearly 20 percent at the same time we’re putting money in the bank.

Oh, wait. That’s exactly what is happening, isn’t it?

The proposal I’m offering to the Governing Board—that budget projections be reasonably close to reality—is absolutely objective and measurable. Furthermore, it is a goal, not a requirement. If the District suffered an unanticipated mid-year budget cut, or if we benefited from a sudden infusion of cash, then, of course, a Superintendent/President should not be held responsible. What this proposal will do is simple: It will ensure that budget-based decisions at SWC are based on a budget that is reasonably accurate.

Philip López
SCEA President

The Sun Shines, and March 4th March

2010-03-03T19:08:00.000-08:00

First, the March (tomorrow, Thursday afternoon):

All across the state, students, teachers, classified professionals, and administrators will be rallying on March 4 to protest cuts to California's education budget. Locally, Southwestern College faculty, staff, students, and community members will be participating in a rally in Balboa Park. We invite--and urge--you to join us!

Event: Rally at the Balboa Park Centro Cultural de La Raza [2004 Park Blvd.] and March to the Governor’s Office in San Diego on March 4th at 3:00 pm.

Meet with students and teachers from all across San Diego regarding state budget decisions that affect education.
Get involved in a public action to show our legislators that students and teachers matter—we ARE the future!
Learn what you can do to better California public education.

Second, even with its funding frozen by a vindictive administration, The Sun rises still!

This installment (available online and in print) features several pieces on SWC's accreditation issues, including a scathing editorial on the administration's role in the problem. Please read, share, and comment to show your support for our tireless Sun reporters and their advisor!

Letters to the Editor

2010-02-27T15:51:00.000-08:00

This month, two Southwestern College teachers and community members published letters in the San Diego Union-Tribune. Read on:

Friday, February 19, 2010 at 12:04 a.m.

Southwestern vibrant, despite probation

It is of great concern and regret that the only institution of higher education in South County has, for the first time in its nearly 50-year history, been placed on probation by the accrediting commission for community colleges. The findings and recommendations by the WASC team can be viewed in their entirety at swccd.edu.

No doubt this probationary status was imposed because eight of 10 previous recommendations made in the 2003 visit still had not been completely satisfied by WASC’s October 2009 visit. Upon review of the report, readers will determine that the primary findings are due to administrative shortcomings and ongoing problems with governance.

However, what the report does state clearly is that, “A sense of vibrancy and student engagement pervades the college, and faculty and staff are clearly dedicated to students and to providing a supportive environment for learning to occur.” It further states, “Turnover in administration has caused middle managers and faculty to take responsibility for the continuity of the day-to-day activities of the college. Staff loyalty and the evident engagement of student in the life of the college have sustained the college through its difficulties.”

As a dedicated and proud employee of Southwestern College, I want to assure the South County that we will continue to work very hard and passionately to provide excellent programs and services to our students.

As a member of this community, I encourage you to exercise your right to determine (at the coming 2010 governing board elections) who will best serve the interests of our much more deserving students and community.

NORMA CAZARES

Chula Vista

---

Saturday, February 27, 2010 at 12:04 a.m.

Accreditation review is serious business

In October, four Southwestern College faculty were suspended after a rally protesting unwarranted class cuts. An administrator was sent with armed police to the home of each instructor to do this. I was one of the instructors. This dictatorial act and countless others have given cause for our college to earn a probationary status.

I was banned 14 days from teaching, from campus and from college e-mail. I could not communicate to my students what had happened.

Regrettably, all our efforts to work collegially with our governing board and president have been summarily dismissed. We at Southwestern College want our college back.

DINORAH GUADIANA-COSTA

San Diego

Don't Get MAD...

2010-02-24T19:33:00.001-08:00

Get the facts!

Last night (Feb. 23), the SWC Governing Board held a "special" (as in, "emergency") meeting to discuss... the college's accreditation fiasco? Nope! How to best provide an education through these ostensibly lean times? Nope!

This "special" meeting was held for the routine task of establishing non-resident fees. So why the emergency? Uh, well, it appears that deadline mandated by the state Education Code is the 1st of February. (Ed Code Section 76140: "(d) The nonresident tuition fee shall be set by the governing board of each community college district not later than February 1 of each year for the succeeding fiscal year.")

Oops! Apparently, no one on the Board (despite several being elected for many years) remembered this deadline. And we guess Vice President for Business of Financial Affairs, Nick Alioto, was too busy checking locked and unlocked doors.

At any rate, Phil Lopez, president of the faculty union, SCEA, has been paying attention:

The SCEA Looks at the Budget

Part of Governing Board members’ fiduciary responsibility to the community is, of course, maintaining the long-term financial integrity of the District. Another part of this fiduciary responsibility is using taxpayer money for the purpose it is intended: Educating our students.

Some History:
Finding a balance between these two conflicting responsibilities—prudent spending vs. prudent savings—is what managing and overseeing a budget is all about. The data below, all of which comes from the CCFS – 311 reports filed annually with the Chancellor’s Office, reveals that the District has been wildly off-base in its budget decisions.

While our community, and perhaps even individual Board members, believe that we’re in the middle of a catastrophic budget crisis, in reality, the District has been putting millions of dollars into an unnecessarily bloated reserve fund.

Fiscal Year

Budgeted Ending Balance

Actual
Ending Balance

Difference

% Difference

06 - 07

$10.114 M

$10.538 M

$0.424 M

4.2%

07 - 08

$ 7.078 M

$11.014 M

$3.936 M

55.6%

08 - 09

$ 5.420 M

$13.467 M

$8.047 M

148.4%

09 - 10

$ 8.133 M

$15.131 M

(on 12/31/09)

$6.998 M

86.0%

Look above at the columns labeled “Actual Ending Balance.” You’ll see that during a series of bad budget years, the District has consistently increased its yearly ending balance. On June 30, 2007, the end of the 06 - 07 fiscal year, it was $10.538 million. Only two and a half years later, at the end of December, 2009, the ending balance is $15.131 million. That’s $4.593 million more, an increase of 43.6%.

Chicken Little:
Every year, the District claims that (1.) we’re facing a deficit, and the sky is about to fall. In fact, (2.) we haven’t been losing money; we’ve turned a hefty profit each and very year.

(1.) If you look at the “Actual Ending Balance” for 07 – 08, you’ll see it was $11.014 million. Next, if you look at the “Budgeted Ending Balance” for the next year, 08 – 09, you’ll find it was $5.420 million. In other words, these budget numbers indicate that the District would lose $5.594 million during the 08 - 09 fiscal year.

(2.) However, when you look at the “Actual Ending Balance” for 08 – 09, you’ll see what really happened: Instead of losing $5.594 million, the District made $2.453 million.

The same thing happens every year: Budgeted numbers predict a loss, but actual numbers show a gain.

The 09 – 10 Budget:
Nothing is different this year. The District’s budget predicted that our ending balance would decline from $13.467 million to $8.133 million; in other words, the budget said we would lose $5.334 million. We’re halfway through this fiscal year, and the most recent “General Cash Fund Analysis” presented to the Governing Board indicates that the District’s ending balance as of December 31, 2009 was $15.131 million. We’ve made $1.664 million so far this year.

How much money the District will have in the bank on June 30, 2010, the end of this fiscal year is an open question. Monthly cash flow reports show balances that fluctuate up and down, but the general trend is up. It is certainly arguable that if the District has made $1.6 million in the first six months of this fiscal year, then it should make another $1.6 million in the remaining six months of the same fiscal year—especially since there have been no mid-year cuts to California community college budgets. Furthermore, the District cut 400+ classes for the Spring semester. Cutting classes means cutting adjunct faculty members’ salaries which means saving even more money—from $1.3 - $1.7 million. It is possible that the ending balance at the end of this fiscal year could be as much as $18 million. One thing is a virtual certainty: The District will not lose money this year.

A Prudent Minimum Reserve:
The Chancellor’s Office recommends a prudent minimum reserve of 5 percent. The Governing Board requires a 7 percent reserve at SWC. However, our reserves are much higher than this.

The balance at the beginning of this fiscal year was $13.467 million. Of this amount $2.127 million is restricted money, which can’t be counted. The remaining $5.5 million in unrestricted money in the budget is called the “Uncommitted Reserve.” This entire amount was budgeted as a loss, but it has not been spent—and will not be spent—this year. In reality, the 7 percent Governing Board reserve of $6.006 million plus the unspent “Uncommitted Reserve” of $5.334 million represents a reserve of 13.4 percent. The reserves as of December 31, 2009 amount to 15.1 percent. If the ending balance at the end of this fiscal year increases even more, the District could have as much as 17 percent in reserve.

Bottom line: The District’s reserves are about three times greater than is recommended by the Chancellor’s Office as a prudent minimum. District reserves are intended to be used as a “rainy day fund” to get us through lean budget years. Instead of spending these reserves, the District has increased them—at the same time it has laid off employees and cut classes.

A Solution:
The recent Accreditation Report from ACCJC criticizes the top-down decision making processes at SWC. The Budget Committee as it currently exists is a prime example of top-down decision making: It meets about once a month and decides nothing. It has operated under the assumption that the District is spending more money than it is taking in when the opposite is true. A direct result of these faulty assumptions was the layoff of employees during the last academic year and deep class cuts this year. It appears that neither of these decisions was necessary or prudent.

Because the Accreditation Report from ACCJC requires shared governance, shared decision making, and integrated planning, and because budget decisions drive nearly all other decisions at SWC, building a budget must include all stakeholders—students, classified professionals, faculty, and administrators—in our campus community.

We need an interest-based budgeting process, similar to the process used successfully at Big Table committees in the past, to put together a yearly budget at SWC. We need trained facilitators to keep the committee on track and to move the process along. Finally, the Governing Board should realize that any decisions or recommendations from such a committee would be based on the most important interest we all share—the long-term financial integrity of the District.

The SWC "Shadow Budget" Exposed

2010-02-12T08:30:00.000-08:00

To justify class cuts and job elimination, the district is claiming financial calamity. Here's another view:

The following message was sent by Frank Post, a member of the faculty negotiating team, to all instructors in Fall 2009.

-----
Attached you find four documents revealing that SWC has been operating with a shadow budget process.

I have reviewed the last three years of board agendas and attachments and provide these documents in an effort to bring to light the "real" budget situation at Southwestern Community College District.

I have provided five pdf attachments (note: all links will open in new windows/tabs)
#1 is a combined file of all four documents
#2 is General Fund Cash Analysis for period ending May 31, 2008
#3 is General Fund Cash Analysis for period ending April 30, 2009
#4 is General Fund Cash Analysis for period ending October 31, 2009
#5 is Tentative Budget - FY 2009-2010

Let me offer some examples, all of which are confirmed by the District's own documents neatly tucked away inside lengthy Board Agendas but never openly reviewed in actual board meetings.

A. In item #2 we see a Monthly Ending Cash Balance Average of $8,924,460.
B. In item #3 we see a Monthly Ending Cash Balance Average of $9,355,270.
C. In item #4 we see a Monthly Ending Cash Balance Average of $13,531,774.77.

D. Item #5 gives us a glimpse of how the District works its magic.

On the bottom of item #5 we see the total ending Balances of Actual, Adopted and Tentative budget years.

Look carefully at how high the Actual ending balances are for 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, both above 10 million dollars each.

Now look at the ending balances for the Adopted and tentative budgets of 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. Both below 7 million dollars.

So how does it work? Still looking at item #5 we see the number of $5,419,812 as the Total Ending Balance under Adopted Budget 2008-2009. Well that is the number the Governing Board is told to make decisions from. So for example, if the SWC Governing Board wants a 6% budget reserve, well, out of an approximate 90 million dollar budget that is about 5 million dollars. So in this scenario, the board sees that they barely have enough to cover their precious reserve; therefore, SWC MUST be very fiscally conservative that year just in order to maintain its reserve.

BUT, looking at item #4 we see that our "Beginning Cash" for July 2009 is $9,533,133.65, almost 4 millions dollars more than what the board thought they had to spend.

We see the same thing in item #5 happening in 2009-2010 year. The "Total Ending Balance" the board is presented with for the Tentative Budget 2009-2010 year is $6,850.188.

BUT, looking at item #4 we see that already though October 31, 2009 we are carrying an average cash balance at the end of each month of $13,531,774.77.

That 13+ million dollars represents more than 7 million dollars above the 6% reserve the SWC Board wishes to maintain.

What does this all mean? It means that the district hides money away in various accounts, claiming the money will be spent, but it actually never is; thus in reality the district is carrying a "Shadow Reserve" of some several million dollars each year above the stated 6% Governing Board Reserve.

Our beginning balances for each of the past few years (I don't yet have records earlier than 2006-2007) show we have much more cash on hand than what the board believes is available to be spent each year.

I'd be happy to meet and go over this and present the material to you in person if you would like.

I also would ask that you consider requesting that the S.C.E.A. hire an independent accountant (separate from CTA/CCA) that specializes in Educational Budgets and Financing to audit SWC's books.

Frank Post
Faculty, Adapted Computer Technology Specialist
S.C.E.A. Negotiation Team Member
Southwestern College
(619) 421-6700 extension 5275
-----

It's worth mentioning that the February 10, 2010 Board agenda also includes the most recent Quarterly Financial Status Report, CCFS-311Q. It's Item 14B3, on page 281 (out of 285 pages). In the report, question VII asks, "Does the district have significant fiscal problems that must be addressed?" The answers: "This year? NO. Next year? NO."

In fact, the district continues to make money. So where's the financial crisis?

Reminders!

2010-02-09T18:59:00.001-08:00

Two big events coming up in the next couple of days:

Tomorrow night (Wednesday) is the February Governing Board meeting. Here's the agenda.

The following night (Thursday) is the Meet-and-Greet new Governing Board candidates fundraiser in Bonita.

Please try to attend one or/and the other.

The Board meeting will be held at the San Ysidro campus at 460 West San Ysidro Blvd., San Ysidro, CA 92173. On the agenda are Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra's evaluation by the Governing Board (please see this post for initial reaction and the faculty evaluation for follow-up) and the reinstatement of compensation for the faculty advisor of the award-winning college newspaper, the SWC Sun.

For details on the Meet-and-Greet, please see this flyer.

A Note to Students and the Community

2010-02-09T08:05:00.000-08:00

Dear Students and Community Members:

My name is Patti Flores-Charter, and I have been a faculty member at Southwestern College since 1992. I am also a member of the faculty Academic Senate and Senate Executive Committee.

The SWC Accreditation Report raises many questions. This note is to

Give you enough information to understand what is happening at our college with accreditation.

Help you feel confident and calm about the safety of the classes in which you are now enrolled.

I will include what I know about the accreditation process and my experiences from participating in the last three accreditations at SWC, including this one. I think that will help you understand why our college was placed on probation and how we got here. You have chosen to be a college student because you know that knowledge is power. So I will work here to give you the knowledge needed to be in control of the information about what is happening to our College.

Classes are safe: All current and past classes at SWC remain accredited; nothing has changed. We have not lost accreditation. Classes will transfer, count for an associate’s degrees, for certificates, licensure, work requirements, etc. Please don’t worry.
You’re right, accreditation is critical. It is a federal process organized by geographic area. Each area has an official office that oversees each college’s accreditation. Our office is in Northern California. Here is the website for more information: http://www.accjc.org/
College Standards are set by the accreditation system for every aspect of a college from curriculum (what is taught, how it is graded, etc.), hiring practices, campus policies, to financial aid and tutoring, etc.

Possible Accreditation Outcomes: After the site visit, all evidence is reviewed by the Accrediting Office with a decision made about accreditation and provided in a final report. Outcomes may include:
1. Re-accredited, nothing changes. In the past we have always been reaccredited with accommodations and recommendations for improvement made. This was normal for our college.
2. Warning: This identifies that improvements are needed and specifies those. A timeline is given (usually a year or more) with a report due on progress. No site visit.
3. Probation: This is what SWC received, and it means that improvements must be made, specifying both improvements and a timeline. This is a serious level of what is called a “sanction”. We must improve by the timeline or risk getting the next level of sanction, Show Cause.
4. Show Cause: At this level, the college is a step away from losing accreditation. The college must prove that it should not lose accreditation.
5. Accreditation withdrawn
Problem Areas Identified in the Report

Dismantling of Shared Governance: Our community colleges have state law that requires the administration and governing board to listen to facultyinput. This is called Shared Governance. This has not happened, so it is an area that must improve.

No Office of Research: Accreditation requires hard data on critical college functions, so every college must have an Office of Research. We have not had one since former President Norma Hernandez was in charge. Thus we could not get the research we needed for the SLO requirements, Academic Program Review, and many Curriculum tasks. This is an area that must improve.

Here is a list of other areas affected by the lack of Shared Governance to date: This Governing Board has approved Dr. Chopra’s dismantling of

So What Do We Do?

For our college to recover, our Governing Board, President, and Vice-Presidents would have to establish a working environment of mutual respect. On campus we all need to be interested in working together in an environment of mutual trust and collaboration as our federal and state legislatures require. To date the President and voting majority has refused all input from our faculty at every Governing Board meeting since Norma Hernandez's departure. We went to the extreme measure of Votes of No Confidence, first in our College President last April 2009 and finally of our Governing Board. Typically, after a vote of No Confidence, a College President will resign soon afterward or the Governing Board will take action. Colleges don’t function under conditions of “No Confidence.” In reality, with our No Confidence Vote the faculty requested that the Board intercede and help us establish a relationship of mutual trust with our President. We were summarily ignored, which led to the No Confidence in the Board.

Only Board Members Nick Aguilar and Jorge Dominguez have listened and tried to intervene. But they are only a minority vote. We have been working in a triage environment under this Board, reacting to one poorly informed decision after another.

Keep in mind there never has been a fiscal crisis at our college. Fiscal reports filed each year with our state Chancellor’s Office have shown this. There was no college to rescue from the brink of fiscal bankruptcy unless those reports were filed erroneously.

There is Good News: We have amazing faculty, classified staff, directors, and deans who understand how an award winning college must operate, because we are one despite our treatment under this current administrative regime. We can get back to where we were, but we need your help NOW.

Contact your Governing Board Members of SWC and College President today and demand the change we must have in leadership. Use your voice and be heard.

Write to the Union Tribune and Chula Vista Star about our needs.

Stay informed and vote in the coming Nov. 2010 election when three Governing Board seats are up for election.

Read more from our SaveOurSWC.blogspot.com.

College is on Probation, but President Chopra Flunks

2010-02-09T07:27:00.000-08:00

Last week, the Southwestern College Academic Senate gave faculty the opportunity to evaluate Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra.

Here are the results.

Sun Shines on the Voice

2010-02-07T20:13:00.000-08:00

SWC Sun reporters Sean Campbell and Lyndsey Winkley guest at The Voice of San Diego!

Their article presents a cogent overview of Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra's behavior and campus conflicts leading up to recent issues with the college's accreditation: Southwestern College Pushed to the Brink by Brutal Power Struggle

Congratulations, Sean and Lyndsey! Thank you, Voice, for finally listening!

Meanwhile, you might be wondering why we haven't posted links to any of the other news pieces out there. So far, we've found a lot of misinformation and sloppy reading of the accreditation report. You can expect a post with links once we've composed a debriefing.

A couple points to keep in mind:

First, the college is in trouble--yes. We here at Save Our Southwestern have been saying this since before the accreditation report came out, before the free speech and faculty suspension disaster. If you'd like to see the documentation, just look back at the original posts made on this blog.

Folks at the college have been saying it (and trying to get the attention of WASC--the accrediting agency) since the Board forced Ron S. Dyste (friend of then-GB member David Agosto) on the college as Vice President of Academic Affairs, leading a popular and collaborative president, Norma Hernandez, to resign.

Most importantly, the college will survive. Administrators and board members come and go, but the heart of SWC will beat on. The real work of the college is done on the ground by the many full- and part-time staff (classified, faculty, and hourly). We're here; the college is here. Please support us and Save Our Southwestern College.

Meet and Greet Potential SWC Governing Board Candidates

2010-02-04T19:14:00.000-08:00

The Southwestern College Education Association PAC is sponsoring a meet-and-greet event for potential SWC Governing Board candidates.

Greetings Community Members of SWC,

Over the last year several prominent community members have expressed interest in running for SWC Governing Board for either a recall election or in the Nov. 2010 General Election.

Three seats are up for election in the Nov. 2010. Meanwhile a recall was started in Dec. because we would not wait any longer to get the word out about the critical problems the current Governing Board majority (Ms. Roesch, Ms. Saucido, and Ms. Valladolid) is causing Southwestern College. Through their voting actions and blanket support for President Dr. Raj Chopra's they have allowed our Accreditation to be in danger for the first time in the college’s history.

They have in the least refused to listen to any input during Oral Communication by community members, students, staff, and faculty every month; and at the worst they are openly condescending to the public and fellow board members, Jorge Dominguez and Nick Aguilar.

To assist our Community to better understand the issues and what is at stake, we have organized a “Meet and Greet” open to all potential Governing Board candidates.

Where: Romesco Baja Med Bistro (in the Tapas Bar)
When: Thursday, February 11th, 2010, from 4:30 to 6:30PM.
Suggested minimum donation: $25 advance/$30 at the door. Appetizers will be provided.

All proceeds will go to the SCEA PAC to support alternative SWC Governing Board candidates running in November 2010.

This “Meet and Greet” is open to all potential Governing Board Candidates for November 2010 elections and to all interested SWC employees, community members, and friends and family.

For more details, see this flyer.

Please RSVP to Janet Mazzarella at jmazzarella1@cox.net or Andrew Rempt at acrempt@gmail.com.

Please share this with family, friends, and business contacts. Together we can Save Our Southwestern College.

Southwestern College on Probation

2010-02-02T20:19:00.000-08:00

The just-released accreditation report from the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) reveals that Southwestern College has been placed "on probation" for ten different violations of educational standards.

ACCJC is a sub-group of WASC, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, one of six regional associations that accredit public and private schools, colleges, and universities in the U.S.

For any educational institution, accreditation is essential. It ensures government funding, the availability of financial aid for students, and the transferability of courses. More importantly, accreditation serves as quality control, assuring the public that an educational institution is sound.

Loss of accreditation is rare, and the process of losing accreditation has several levels and steps. The first is "warning." The second is "probation," which applies to SWC. In this case, the college will have until this October to address five of the issues and until May 2011 to address the rest. For a summary of the areas needing improvement, see the ACCJC Action Letter.

The college held the first of several planned "Town Hall" meetings this evening at 5:00. While we're not sure what a town hall meeting entails, this certainly felt more like a press conference. Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra spoke briefly and optimistically about how the report represents an "opportunity" and how "the glass is half full." Academic Senate President Valerie Goodwin-Colbert was more forthcoming about how the college's own self-study had identified problem areas, though she also stressed a positive "let's do this" approach.

Dean of Instructional Support Services, Mink Stavenga (as newly-appointed accreditation liaison), then took center stage and fielded most of the audience's (often pointed) questions.

There will be additional "Town Hall" meetings on both the main and satellite campuses:

The next scheduled forum on the Chula Vista campus will take place

Thursday, February 4, 2010 from 11:00 a.m. to noon

Student Union East (Cafeteria)

Additional meetings will be held at the Higher Education Centers as follows:

National City: Wednesday, February 3, 2010 1:00 p.m.

San Ysidro: Thursday, February 4, 2010 8:30 a.m.

Otay Mesa: Friday, February 5, 2010 8:30 a.m.

Accreditation News: Town Hall Meeting Tonight

2010-02-02T08:22:00.000-08:00

Late yesterday, Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra issued a memo announcing that the college has received the much-anticipated report from the Accreditation Commission for Community and Junior Colleges.

The college has not yet publicly posted the accreditation report, but a "Town Hall" meeting has been scheduled to discuss the results. The meeting will be held at 5:00 p.m. today on the main campus in Room L238 N&S (across from the library).

In other news, the Governing Board took no action at its recent special meeting to evaluate Chopra. Meanwhile, an online survey (see previous post) has gone out to all faculty.

Stay tuned!

Evaluation Matters: Faculty Respond

2010-01-28T16:48:00.000-08:00

Today, faculty leadership responded to the Board's decision to call a special meeting to evaluate Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra without soliciting any input from the campus community.

Both Valerie Goodwin-Colbert, Academic Senate President, and Phil López, SCEA President, addressed Governing Board members in open letters, asking that they reconsider the evaluation's timing and implementation. "It is in the spirit of promoting an environment of transparency, trust and responsibility that I am asking that the evaluation processes are made public" wrote Goodwin-Colbert. López asks, "How can the Board evaluate the Superintendent/President without a clear process for doing so and without input from any constituent group at SWC, whether it is academic administrators, classified managers and directors, classified staff, faculty, or students?"

The text of both letters as well as a survey presented by Goodwin-Colbert appear below.

An Open Letter to the Governing Board

Philip Lopez

Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 12:38 PM

To: 'picknickaguilar@cox.net'; Jorge Dominguez; Jean Roesch; Yolanda Salcido; Terri Valladolid

Cc: Fulltime Academic; Adjunct Faculty

An Open Letter to the Governing Board

In accordance with Accreditation Standard IV.B.1, Governing Board Policy 2435 states, in part, that “[t]he Governing board shall evaluate the Superintendent/President using an evaluation process developed and jointly agreed to by the Board and the Superintendent/President.”

To my best knowledge, no such process exists. This fact raises one simple question: How can the Board evaluate the Superintendent/President without a clear process for doing so and without input from any constituent group at SWC, whether it is academic administrators, classified managers and directors, classified staff, faculty, or students?

An equally simple answer to this question is that you cannot.

The evaluation of every other District employee requires input from several sources and many individuals. For example, a tenured faculty member is evaluated by a Dean, two peers, and every student in every one of his/her classes. The evaluation process for non-tenured faculty members is even more rigorous.

Any evaluation process for the Superintendent/President—arguably the most important District employee—must be open and available to the public. It should also be relatively comprehensive and include input from a wide spectrum of the campus community.

The current Board policy was adopted on March 12, 2008. On Thursday, January 28—nearly two years later—the Board is proposing to evaluate the Superintendent/President without a clear process in place and without formal input from anyone on campus or in the community.

I urge the Board to delay the evaluation of the Superintendent/President until you have complied with your own Board Policy 2435, especially since the accreditation report from WASC—information that should be important to all of you—will be available soon, maybe as early as next week.

Finally, over the past several weeks when I’ve expressed my concerns about the campus climate and faculty morale, I’ve been told not to worry, that things are going to change, that the Board and top administration have a renewed commitment to shared governance.

So consider this a litmus test. Surely, a strong commitment to shared governance requires that members of our campus community share our thoughts and concerns with you before you evaluate the Superintendent/President. If Board members value our input, then it should be required as part of process of evaluating the Superintendent/President. If our input is not required and not part of this process, then the message you are sending us is clear: Collegial consultation with all campus stakeholders is neither valuable nor valued, and shared governance is a sham.

Philip López

SCEA President

Special Governing Board meeting & Academic Senate request

Valerie Goodwin

Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 9:56 AM

To: Yolanda Salcido; Jean Roesch; Jorge Dominguez; Nick Aguilar [picknickaguilar@cox.net]; Terri Valladolid; Chris DeBauche [howsemewzyk@hotmail.com]; ASO PRESIDENT

Attachments: Evaluation (1).doc

Date: January 28, 2010

To: Southwestern College Governing Board members

From: Valerie Goodwin-Colbert, Academic Senate President

In lieu of the Special Governing Board meeting tonight, may I encourage you as guardians of the institutional due process, that an evaluation process, tools and timeline for the evaluation of the Superintendent/President have not been publicly communicated and accessible, before the evaluation is administered or finalized by the Governing Board. In accordance to Southwestern College District Policy 2435 Evaluation of the Superintendent/President, the ‘evaluation process is required to be developed’, and to this date the public have not had prior communication of that process. It is in the spirit of promoting an environment of transparency, trust and responsibility that I am asking that the evaluation processes are made public.

Your special meeting tonight should be used to establish the process, including tools and timeline, which will be used over the following month to do an accurate and public process. This is critical in the coming days as we receive the Accreditation status and ACCJC mandates for Southwestern College to maintain Accreditation, with the amount of attention in that report that focuses on trust and building a campus environment to be healthy again.

The Academic Senate approved Tuesday an evaluation tool, a very thorough survey, which will be dispersed to all faculty within the next several hours electronically. The survey is one of many evaluation tools that have been used in the past and we are promoting this tool again to give the Governing Board as much input as possible in decisions that would otherwise be considered ‘blind’. The accumulative responses and results will be presented to you as Governing Board members, before the February Governing Board meeting for your review and capability to utilize a broader evaluation of the Superintendent/President’s performance. I have attached the survey tool for your review and how this could be a fair and complete evaluation instrument used not only by faculty but by the campus community as a whole.

Thank you for your continued service to Southwestern Community College District.

Superintendent/President Evaluation

FACULTY REPORT

The letter “grades” below reflect the grade points which will be used to complete the evaluation. Please enter the grades points (4-0) only in the boxes next to the questions. Use N/A as needed.

A = (Excellent) Greatly Above Expectation, 4 grade points

B = (Good) Above Expectation, 3 grade points

C = (Average) At Expectation, 2 grade points

D = (Poor) Below Expectation, 1 grade point

F = (Unsatisfactory) Significantly Below Expectation, 0 grade points

N/A = Not Applicable

LEADERSHIP
Grade Points
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president inspire faculty to do its professional best?
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president act in a manner that motivates other administrators to high standards of fairness, enthusiasm, honesty, integrity and accomplishment?
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president promulgate a vision, including a specific set of goals and priorities that employees are inspired to follow?
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president demonstrate effectiveness and diplomacy in working with others and in maintaining productive relationships?
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president demonstrate the ability to make good judgments, rally support, and give appropriate direction when it is called for?
	To what extent is the Superintendent/president well organized, able to make other managers work as a team and produce quality work?
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president’s personal style include originality, creativity and a sense of humor?
	Overall, how would you rate your confidence in the leadership ability of the Superintendent/president?

Comments:

PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE
Grade Points
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president demonstrate knowledge of the responsibilities of the position of Superintendent/president and how well does she/he integrate this knowledge into the operation of the district?
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president demonstrate understanding of local and state finance; and institute sound accounting procedures bthat assure fiscal confidence, integrity and reasonable balances among the competing interests of compensation, capital and maintenance and reserves?
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president foster reasonable strategic planning that includes program review, local demographics, long-range community needs and incorporates this data in the local district master plan?

Comments:

COMMUNICATION SKILLS
Grade Points
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president communicate clearly and persuasively in written and oral messages?
	To what extent is the Superintendent/president an open individual who listens carefully, is respective to others, welcomes new ideas, keeps his/her office door open?
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president communication effectively with the community at large and build understanding and support for agreed upon district goals and needs?
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president convey clear ideas of where the district is now and where it is going?

Comments:

SHARED GOVERNANCE
Grade Points
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president demonstrate understanding of AB 1725 and honor its mandates?
	Does this include:
	Effective hiring policies?
	Effective peer evaluation for full-time and part-time faculty?
	Effective tenure evaluation procedure?
	Effective management evaluation procedures?
	Satisfactory Faculty Services Areas (FSA) and competency standards, including equivalency?
	Commitment to achieving 75/25 ratio of full-time to part-time faculty?
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president demonstrate a commitment to open development of the district budget and policies?
	Does this include:
	A voice for both senate and union?
	Sharing of reliable data?
	Reasonable cost of living adjustments?
	Reasonable benefits package?
	Reasonable faculty support
	Reasonable deferred maintenance and capital?
	To what extent has the Superintendent/president fostered a governance structure that promotes collaborative, consensus driven decision making?
	To what extent does this governance structure allow adequate time and opportunity for all faculty constituencies to provide input prior to decision making?
	To what extent do the Superintendent/president’s final decisions on major policy issues generally reflect the views of faculty leaders?

Comments:

COMMITMENT TO INSTRUCTION
Grade Points
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president demonstrate a commitment to teaching excellence?
	Does this include:
	Clean, well kept classrooms?
	Adequate, up-to-date instructional equipment?
	Adequate duplicating services for class materials?
	Reasonable class size?
	Adequate tutorial support?
	Adequate counseling support?
	Adequate instructional support (library, video, etc.)?
	Cultural pluralism and student diversity?
	Faculty control of curriculum development?
	Special recognition for outstanding teaching?
	Encouragement for innovation?
	Adequate student grievance policy?
	Adequate sexual harassment and discrimination policies?
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president demonstrate a commitment to high Quality, balanced instructional program?

Comments:

RELATIONSHIP WITH FACULTY AND FACULTY ORGANIZATIONS
Grade Points
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president actively promote unity, cooperation and harmony among senates, collective bargaining units, administration and other employees groups?
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president support senate and/or collective bargaining activities by granting reasonable reassigned time to carry out duties?
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president accept the recommendations of the senate in academic and professional matters?
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president assure that senate leaders and faculty have adequate and convenient access to local governing board trustee meetings?
	To what extent is the Superintendent/president supportive of Title 5 Regulations?
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president support the collective bargaining process as a valid tool for resolving employment issues in a fair and equitable manner?
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president use his/her influence to encourage negotiators to reach agreement on proposals in an efficient, timely manner and non-controversial manner?
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president require managers to know the collective bargaining contract, honor its provisions and keep abreast of changes?
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president promote prompt and fair resolution of conflict between administration and employees?
	To what extent has the Superintendent/president been able to create a high level of morale at Southwestern College?

Comments:

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Grade Points
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president actively support and fund campus teaching resources centers and/or similar professional development programs?
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president support a professional development leave (sabbatical) program at Southwestern College?
	To what extent does the Superintendent/president actively support faculty-driven flex day programs and activities?

Comments:

Please use this space for additional comments, as appropriate:

They're baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

2010-01-27T21:46:00.000-08:00

The Governing Board, that is.

With a mere 24 hours notice, the SWC GB has called an "emergency" meeting to "evaluate" Superintendent/President Raj K. Chopra.

Interestingly, the Board has made absolutely no effort to solicit input from community members, students, faculty, or staff.

With three members (Board President Yolanda Salcido and members Jean Roesch and Terri Valladolid) up for a recall vote, we can't help but wonder about the motives underlying this latest move.

It's possible that the three are nervous about the recall vote and are going to finally take action against Chopra. Given their past actions, however, we guess this is unlikely.

More in line with the Board's previous behavior would be a commendation and another raise for Chopra.

Especially given that just-retired John Wilson (and publicly acknowledged boyfriend of GB Pres. Yolanda Salcido) received a 50K+ sweetheart deal as a consultant at the last GB meeting, it's not difficult to imagine Chop demanding his 50K+ too (in contrast to the "lousy 15,000" he got last round).

Meanwhile, students can't get the classes they need because of cuts due to the "budget crisis."

Tomorrow's Board meeting will begin at 5:30 in the Board Room (214 on the main campus), where public comments can be made. The meeting will then move to closed session in 100A. Apparently, any post-meeting announcements will also be made in 100A.

Here's the agenda.

Trouble at Southwestern College

2009-12-26T19:07:00.000-08:00

Local artist Katherine Sweetman, in conjunction with Media Arts Center San Diego, has produced a short video, Trouble at Southwestern College.

Highlighting the role of electronic news sharing, the video documents the issues leading up to the Oct. 22 student rally and the ensuing suspension of four instructors.

Please share!

Censorship and the Sun

2009-12-11T15:47:00.001-08:00

Award-winning student publication The Sun dealt another blow

According to sources, an "audit" (responsible agency unknown) has halted publication of the Southwestern College Sun. Reportedly, Vice President of Business and Financial Affairs Nicholas Alioto will not allow The Sun to transfer any money until the audit is complete, in effect stopping the presses.

For background and insight on this latest turn of events, please see Nick Furr's post at The Writer's Washroom.